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..
The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is that the reasoning for this Court’s ruling is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court’s ruling, except in the following cases: (b) the third party 7 of the first instance court’s ruling “decision on Defendant’s defense” (hereinafter “Defendant’s defense”), and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
【Discied Part】
B. The defendant's assertion as to the defendant's assertion is that the defendant set up the right to collateral security of this case so that his children can easily exercise their claims against C, as it is not good for health at the time of entering into the instant right to collateral security agreement, and as soon as it is later possible to arrange the monetary transaction relationship with C.
In addition, the defendant was aware that C was holding a high-priced curios, and it was not anticipated that C was in excess of his obligation. At the time, the defendant did not know that the conclusion of the mortgage contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act.
Judgment
In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the beneficiary has the burden of proving that he/she was unaware of the fact that he/she was a fraudulent act. In cases where the debtor's act of disposal of property against a third party constitutes a fraudulent act, the objective and acceptable evidence should be supported when recognizing that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of such fraudulent act, and only the debtor's unilateral statement or a statement that is merely a third party's explanation, etc., that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of such fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5710, Apr. 14, 2006). In light of the above legal principles, the mortgage contract in this case is between the health care unit, the defendant and C, the time when the mortgage contract in this case was concluded between the plaintiff and C while the loan lawsuit between the plaintiff and C was pending, the defendant's assertion that the mortgage contract in this case was concluded on June 5, 2006, but the mortgage contract in this case was concluded around May 2012.