사해행위취소
The judgment of the first instance is revoked.
On March 15, 2017, the real estate recorded in the attached list between the defendant and D is concluded.
1. The judgment of this court on this part of the basic facts is consistent with the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following: “The result of the response to the financial transaction information rendered by this court on August 23, 2018 to G Co., Ltd. on Co., Ltd. on Co., Ltd. on Co., Ltd. on Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., and the result of response to each order to submit tax information to the Gu Office and the Gun Office in Ulsan Metropolitan City in the court of first instance on Aug. 23, 2018” as “the result of reply by G Co., Ltd. to the order to submit financial transaction information by the court of first instance on the duty to taxation of the court of first instance on Co., Ltd., Ltd. on Co., Ltd., Ltd. on Co., Ltd., Ltd.,
2. Whether such act is recognized;
A. According to the above facts, at the time of entering into the sales contract of this case, the Plaintiff had a joint and several liability claim against D according to the joint and several liability of this case, and this constitutes a preserved claim for cancellation of the act of deception.
B. An act of selling real estate, which is the only property of a debtor, and changing it into money which is easily consumed by selling real estate, which is one of the property of the debtor, is an act of harming the creditor, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da241819, Nov. 29, 2017). According to the above facts of recognition, selling the real estate of this case, which is the only real estate under the condition that the debtor D has no particular property, constitutes an act of reducing the joint security of the general creditors, including the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.
B. In light of D’s obligations and financial status, D was aware that the instant sales contract would prejudice the general creditor.
It is reasonable to see that a beneficiary is a private road in the defendant's private sphere.
(c)
The defendant's argument 1) The main point of the defendant's argument is that there is no relative relationship with D, and D from March 14, 2017.