사해행위취소등
1. The Defendant concluded around June 2014 with respect to each machine listed in the separate sheet.
In full view of the fact-finding evidence Nos. 1-1 through 14-3 of evidence Nos. 14-3 (including paper numbers), and the fact-finding results of this court's fact-finding in relation to the Jungbu District Employment and Labor Agency, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund, the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Corporation, and the Dolren Company, the fact-finding results of this court's inquiries, and the whole purport of the arguments in response to each financial transaction information of the Bank, the Korean National Bank, and the IBK Bank, it
The Defendant’s assertion is merely a fact that the Defendant, on March 30, 2012, obtained a movable property transfer security for the instant machines from Mayman, and received and settled the said machines around June 2014 as a security execution, and even if the subject of said contract is to be revoked, the said contract should be a contract establishing a movable property transfer security for the said machines. However, the said contract establishing a movable property transfer security for the said purpose is not established as it was concluded more than before the Plaintiff’s claim for the secured interest against Mayman was created.
The above argument is insufficient to reverse the above fact-finding, and there is no other counter-proof of the defendant. The above argument is that each statement in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, which denies the facts of recognition as mentioned above, is not reliable, and it is not sufficient to reverse the above fact-finding.
Where the obligor’s property is insufficient to satisfy the entire obligation, and where the obligor provided his property to a certain obligee as payment in kind or as a security, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, it would thereby prejudice the interests of other obligees and thereby prejudice the obligee in relation to other obligees. This also applies to the case where the obligor’s property provided as payment in kind or as a security is not the obligor’s exclusive property, or
According to the facts established above, the following facts are as follows.
: The plaintiff's claim for the price of goods based on the final and conclusive judgment against Egyptian.