In a case where a business or a purchaser of real estate agrees to take over a burden attached to the real estate, such as a collateral security obligation, and deducts the amount of the purchase price as much as the amount of the debt, the purchaser’s agreement to bear such obligation cannot be deemed as a so-called exempted assumption of obligation, barring the creditor’s consent. Furthermore, in distinguishing whether such an agreement is merely an acceptance of performance or a contract for a third party, i.e., a joint assumption of obligation, the criteria for determining whether the contractual party or the creditor wishes to directly acquire the claim against either the contractual party or the claimant. Specifically, the intent should be interpreted by comprehensively taking into account the motive, circumstance and purpose of the conclusion of the contract, status of the contractual party, interest between the parties and the third party, transaction practices, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da28698, Oct. 24, 197).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to the plaintiff's assertion of fraudulent act, since the evidence submitted in this case alone is insufficient to view that the plaintiff directly acquired the loan obligation of this case against the plaintiff ○○ Construction, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff directly acquired the loan obligation of this case against the defendant Dana Industrial Development, and rather, in concluding the sales contract of this case, the defendant Dana Industrial Development merely agreed that the defendant Dana Industrial Development takes over the loan obligation of this case, and it does not agree with the terms of the assumption of the obligation of this case, such as the creditor's consent or the procedure of changing the debtor, etc. 2. 3. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 70 . 7. 9 0 . 9 . 9 . 1. 3. 0 0 . 1. 1. 1. 3. 20 . 8 . 1. 1. 20 . 3. 8 . 20. . 1. 3 . . . . 2. . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ....... .... ....... ......... . . . . . ............. to be. . .

However, such determination is difficult to accept.

Since the assumption of obligation jointly is a contract for a third party between the former debtor and the assumption of obligation, it does not require the consent of the creditor at the time of conclusion of the contract or the procedure for change of the debtor, the above ①, ② cannot be the basis for deeming the assumption of obligation under the contract of this case as a simple acceptance of performance, and the fact that Defendant Multi-Industrial Development deducted the obligations owed to the plaintiff of ○○ General Construction and △△△△△△△△ Corporation from the purchase price at the time of the sales contract of this case and substituted the acceptance of the obligation of this case as a substitute for the payment of the purchase price of this case. Rather, the above assumption of obligation is not a mere acceptance of performance, but a joint acceptance of obligation, and the fact that the above assumption of obligation is not a mere acceptance of performance, and the fact that the above

In light of the above legal principles, in the case of this case, Defendant Multi-Industrial Development, which is the assumption of obligation, has obtained prior deduction of the amount equivalent to the debt burden to the Plaintiff of ○○ General Construction, and has taken advantage corresponding to the debt burden, and thus, it can be seen as the assumption of obligation. In addition, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, Defendant Multi-Industrial Development obtained a written consent to change the project entity from the Plaintiff and submitted it to the same City Mayor in Dongdo. As such, requesting the Plaintiff to issue the “written consent to change the project entity.” As such, Defendant Multi-Industrial Development requested the Plaintiff to issue the “written consent to change the project entity.” As such, it is deemed that the transfer contract, such as its business right, etc., has the character as a contract for the obligee. Therefore, even in light of this, the above debt acquisition should be regarded as a joint assumption of obligation.

Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of fraudulent act by deeming that the instant assumption of obligation is merely a mere performance acceptance, and thus, rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for the Defendant C&A development as a preserved claim. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the distinction between the performance acceptance and the joint assumption of obligation.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)