사해행위취소 등
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 fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court, citing the judgment of the first instance court, is justified even if the defendant neglected the evidence duly examined by the court of first instance to the evidence presented to this court.
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for dismissal or addition as follows, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. On October 31, 2016, the part to be dismissed or added is as follows: “ October 26, 2016.” 5 pages 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “ October 31, 2016.”
In the judgment of the court of first instance, "the plaintiff" in the 11th and 14th and the "the defendant" shall each be "the defendant."
In the fifth judgment of the court of first instance, the obligation to return a penalty against the plaintiff in 12 of the small property No. 12 in the table of this case shall be deemed to be the obligation to return the penalty against the defendant, and the obligation to return the tax paid by the plaintiff in 13 shall be deemed to be the obligation to return the penalty against the defendant.
In the fifth page of the judgment of the first instance, “The Plaintiff paid KRW 1,106,031,719 to Q Bank,” each of the five pages 4 of the judgment of the first instance, “The Defendant eventually repaid KRW 1,106,031,719 to Q Bank.” The Defendant paid KRW 1,100,000 to Q Bank. The Defendant paid KRW 110,000,000 to Q Bank.”
From the 10th of the first instance judgment to the 10th of the first instance judgment, the 10th of the first instance judgment is as follows.
3) The Defendant’s defense, in light of the developments leading up to the instant promise to sell and purchase and the sales contract, and the settlement result, etc., the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Defendant was bona fide by a legitimate sale. In recognizing that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, objective and acceptable evidence, etc. should be supported, and it cannot be readily concluded that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act merely based on the obligor’s unilateral statement or a statement that is merely a third party’s abstract statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5710, Apr. 14, 2006).