사해행위취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
With respect to this case, the court's use of the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is as follows: ① in the judgment of the first instance, Chapters 6 through 14 were dismissed as follows; ② in the judgment of the court of first instance, the remaining claims were extinguished as of August 5, 2014, and as of August 8, 2014, it can be known that the gold village passenger would no longer occur by transferring a bus transport business right to a third party; ③ in the judgment of the court of first instance, "380 million won" in the 7th class 8th class "(the defendant is liable to compensate for value only up to 67,396,878 won actually collected by the defendant among the transport claims of this case, but the defendant's total amount repaid by the union including the above 67,396,878 won, 250,513 won, and the remaining claims are not accepted within the scope of 10 billion won, excluding the amount of credit or 201 billion won, which the defendant returned to the remaining amount to the debtor (see the above judgment of 20136.7.2.1 billion won).
[Supplementary part] The fact that the Defendant returned KRW 900 million to gold village passengers out of the transport income claims of this case repaid by the Association does not conflict between the parties.
However, considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s property seeking return due to the revocation of the fraudulent act is not money that the Defendant received for the collection of the instant transportation revenue claim, and that money is an easily consumed property different from the above claims, and that compulsory execution is not available, the Defendant collected the above transfer credit and gave part of the said money to the Gold Village passenger.
Even if the plaintiff's property was restored due to the cancellation of fraudulent act, it was restored to its original state.
(2) the amount.