사해행위취소에 따른 배당이의의 소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning for this part of the underlying facts is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except that the court, based on this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, took the “No. 19, 2006, Apr. 19, 2006” as the “No. 12, 2016, Apr. 19, 2016,” thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The main claim of this case 1 and the second lease contract of this case are invalid or invalid as a conspiracy, and even if they are valid, the defendant did not actually pay D the lease deposit amount of KRW 50,000,000 to D. Thus, the amount of dividends of KRW 50,000,000 to the defendant should be revised as KRW 0,00, and KRW 5,067,732 to the plaintiff as the amount of dividends of KRW 55,067,732 to the plaintiff, respectively.
B. The second lease agreement of this case constitutes a fraudulent act concluded in order to enable the defendant to obtain preferential repayment under the Housing Lease Protection Act with the excess debt of D, and thus, it should be revoked. The amount of 50,000,000 won to the defendant in the distribution schedule of this case should be recovered to its original state, and 5,067,732 won to the plaintiff should be corrected to its original state, and 5,067,732 won to the plaintiff should be corrected to its original state.
3. Judgment on the plaintiff's primary claim
A. The burden of proving the grounds for objection against distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is also in accordance with the principle of distribution of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. In the event that the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's claim has not been constituted, the defendant is liable to prove the facts of the cause of the claim, and where the plaintiff claims that the claim has become null and void as a false declaration or has become extinguished by repayment, the plaintiff is liable to prove
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617 Decided July 12, 2007, etc.). However, the Defendant’s assertion that a claim has been established and the contents of evidence are contrary to logical and empirical rules.