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..
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following additional determination, thereby citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. As to the assertion that there is no preserved claim, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the authentication of C and the Plaintiff constitutes a notarial deed of promissory note amounting to KRW 300 million, which was authenticated by C and C in accordance with Article 374 of the Commercial Act (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) for the purpose of securing C’s management right, and that the instant promissory note is null and void since C had not operated G. The Plaintiff is a creditor of G, and the Plaintiff is a creditor of G and C without the court’s permission before the decision to discontinue the rehabilitation procedure of G is finalized, and that the instant promissory note deed of which C is a debtor is null and void since it constitutes a transfer of business without a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, even
In full view of the purport of the entire argument in the evidence No. 8, it is recognized that the rehabilitation procedure for G was commenced on April 12, 2013, and the decision to discontinue the rehabilitation procedure was made on June 12, 2013, and the above decision was finalized on June 27, 2013, and the fact that the bonds and debt acquisition contract was concluded between G and C on June 13, 2013, with the purport that the bonds and debt acquisition contract between G and C are taken over.
However, the validity of the promissory note No. 3 stating the purport of the recognition of execution should be disputed with the lawsuit of objection to the claim, and as long as the said promissory note No. C was made with the obligor, the validity of the instant promissory note No. 3 does not affect the instant promissory note No. 3.
In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Notarial Deed of this case is invalid.
Therefore, the defendant's above argument is justified.