사해행위취소
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
1.6% of the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and C.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2) below, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing this as it is
2. The addition or height at the second level of the judgment of the court of first instance stated the phrase “,” at the fifth level of the judgment of the court of second instance, and the Defendant paid C the purchase price of the said shares at KRW 40 million.”
The second written evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance is added after the second written evidence of the second written evidence, and the second written evidence is added.
Part 8 of the decision of the first instance court shall be deleted, and the following shall be followed:
“B. 1) Restoration following the revocation of fraudulent act by the value compensation shall, in principle, be based on the return of the original property itself, i.e., the return of the original property, and in exceptional cases where the return of the original property is impossible or considerably difficult, compensation for value shall be granted.
Here, where the return of the original object is impossible or considerably difficult means a case where the creditor cannot expect the subsequent purchaser to realize the performance in light of the empirical rules of social life or the concept of transaction, rather than the case where the return of the original object is an absolute and physical impossibility.
(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da57139 Decided February 9, 2001, etc.). As to the instant case, the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Defendant D after the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of Defendant on the ground of the instant sales contract with respect to one-half portion of the instant real estate, which is the only property C, due to the health deposit and the transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant, is as seen earlier. Unless there are special circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the return of the original portion of the instant real estate itself is impossible or considerably difficult, and therefore, the restoration of the said share should be made in the form of compensation for value.
2. The scope of compensation for value.