2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

2. The parties' assertion

A. Each transfer contract for the claim for the return of the lease deposit of this case concluded through the preparation of the authentic deed Nos. 1 and 2 of this case (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”) constitutes a biased act in which the obligor offered the entire claim for the return of the lease deposit of this case, the only property under the status of excess of the obligation, to the Defendant, who is a specific creditor, as a security, to the Defendant. Thus, it is denied under Article 391 subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Bankruptcy Act”).

However, as the Defendant informed D and E of the assignment of the right to claim the return of the lease deposit of this case based on the instant transfer security agreement, it is demanding that the Defendant notify D and E that the instant transfer security contract was denied and invalidated.

B. Since the debtor was not in a state of insolvency or debt excess at the time of entering into the instant transfer contract, the said contract does not constitute a biased act subject to the exercise of avoidance power under the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, and the defendant was unaware of the fact that the debtor would be harmed by the said contract at the time of entering into the said contract.

Therefore, the exercise of the right to set aside by any mother is not allowed.

3. Determination

A. The “act performed by the debtor with knowledge that it would prejudice any bankruptcy creditor”, which is an act subject to avoidance under Article 391 subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, as to whether the act was intentionally constituted, not only the so-called fraudulent act absolutely reduced the debtor’s general property, which is a joint security of all creditors, but also the act such as repayment to a specific creditor or provision of security.