구상금 등 청구의 소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasons why the court should explain in this judgment are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except that part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as stated in the following Paragraph (2) (Provided, That the part against joint defendants of the court of first instance is excluded), and that part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts to be dried;
(a) The 6th 20th 20th 20th 20 of the judgment of the first instance court "2014" shall be written "2 February 2015".
B. The part of “A” in the 8th to 10th 9th 10th 10 of the judgment of the first instance court was stated as follows: “In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the evidence submitted by the Defendant up to the trial and the circumstances of the assertion are considered.”
C. The part of the 8th judgment of the court of first instance stating that “the act constitutes a fraudulent act, and the bad faith of Defendant B and Defendant D, the debtor, constitutes a fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da14582, Jun. 30, 1995), and the defendant, the beneficiary, is presumed to be acting in bad faith.”
The part of the 9th judgment of the first instance court stating that “reasonable determination should be made” of the 10th judgment should be “reasonable. Furthermore, in a case where an obligor’s act of disposal of property constitutes a fraudulent act, objective and acceptable evidence, etc. should be supported so that the beneficiary would have acted in good faith at the time of the fraudulent act.”
E. Defendant D’s portion on the 14-15th page of the first instance court’s decision was stated as follows: “The evidence submitted by Defendant D up to the trial and the circumstances surrounding the assertion are considered.”
F. There are various numbers in the 9-20th 19-20th 1 of the judgment of the first instance court, “The data submitted by Defendant D alone are insufficient to recognize that the instant E is collective ownership property, not joint ownership.”