사해행위취소 등
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
As to the construction machinery listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and C.
1. The reasons why the court is stated in this part of the facts of recognition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. Determination
A. On October 12, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with a notary public from C, a law firm, with a loan No. 347, 2015, the interest rate of KRW 25% per annum, and the due date of payment until June 30, 2016, as seen earlier.
The above facts are as follows, which are acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleading to the statement No. 6 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) in addition to the statement of the above facts, i.e., ① the Plaintiff remitted the total of KRW 147,400,000 to the account in the name of C from April 9, 2008 to April 10, 2013, and ② the Plaintiff’s loan claim based on the Plaintiff’s authentic deed does not seem to have any circumstance to recognize the falsity, the Plaintiff has a loan claim amounting to KRW 70,00,000 against C.
B. Fraudulent act and intent of deception 1) The act of increasing a negative property by an obligor, who is already missing in excess of the obligation, is a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da42711, Oct. 25, 2002). If the obligor’s property is insufficient to fully repay the obligation, barring any special circumstance, if the obligor offered the obligor’s property as payment in kind or as a security for payment in kind to any specific obligee, then it would be prejudicial to the interests of other creditors and thus, constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da85161, Sept. 10, 200). In other words, each of the following circumstances revealed by considering the entries in evidence A, as well as the overall purport of images and arguments as stated above, as well as evidence C, even if at the time of the sales contract, exceeds the obligation against the Defendant.