배당이의의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim shall be dismissed at the trial.
3...
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment concerning the basic facts and the primary claim are as follows: (a) the third 1st "responding" among the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the third responding "responding" is "responding", and therefore, (b) the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in Article 420
2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim
A. The plaintiff asserted that D had a claim for loans of KRW 18,750,000 and damages for delay against D before entering into the instant lease agreement, and D entered into the instant lease agreement with the defendant even if D was insolvent due to excess of debt. Such act of D is a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, who is the creditor, and the defendant's bad faith is presumed to be a beneficiary. Thus, the instant lease agreement should be revoked as a fraudulent act.
B. In the exercise of the obligee's right of revocation as to the defense at issue, "the date when the obligee becomes aware of the grounds for the revocation" means the date when the obligee became aware of the requirements for the obligee's right of revocation, that is, the date when the obligee became aware of the fact that the obligor committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that the obligee would prejudice the obligee. Thus, it is insufficient to say that the obligor's act of disposal of the property is an act detrimental to the obligee, that is, that the legal act is an act detrimental to the obligee, namely, that the obligor's act of disposal of the property is insufficient by simply knowing that the obligor committed a fraudulent act, and that the legal act is an act detrimental to the obligee.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da11239 delivered on November 26, 2002). In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the following: health care room; (a) evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 8, and 13; and (b) evidence Nos. 4-1 and 4-2 as to the instant case; and (c) the entire purport of the argument is as follows: (a) the housing of this case was already totaled 79,900 at the time