대여금 등
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2.Paragraph 2 of the annexed Schedule of Real Estate shall be recorded upon a claim added at the trial.
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "Real estate recorded in the list (hereinafter "the real estate of this case")" in Section 2, Section 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as "the real estate of this case"; the 15 to 19 of the same section shall be as stated in the list of real estate of this case as stated in Section 2., as shown in the attached list of the attached Table No. 2.3, the part "Sale on April 2, 2014 (hereinafter "the sale contract of this case")" shall be as stated in the attached list of real estate of this case; the 10 of the same section shall be as "the sales contract of this case"; the 10 of the same section shall be stated as "the grounds for recognition"; the entry in subparagraphs 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings; the defendant's new argument in the trial of the court of first instance shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The part 2) Subsequent to the completion of the attachment registration, which was made on October 31, 2012 and January 8, 2014 with respect to B’s portion among the instant real estate No. 1, the owner of each right on October 31, 2012 and on January 8, 2014, was registered as the owner of each of the instant real estate B’s share (hereinafter “instant share”).
On January 24, 2014, the provisional attachment of creditor Industrial Bank of Korea, the claimed amount of KRW 6,168,933, the provisional attachment of KRW 4,357,566 on March 7, 2014, the provisional attachment of KRW 4,357,566, and the provisional attachment of KRW 5,130,000 on March 12, 2014.
3. The additional determination portion is that the defendant's value of the shares acquired by the defendant reaches KRW 100 million, which is the plaintiff's preserved claim, and thus, it is unreasonable to order the revocation of fraudulent act and the restoration of the original state to the whole shares of this case. However, there is no evidence to prove that the value of the shares of this case exceeds the preserved claim amount, and if the object of the fraudulent act is indivisible as one piece of land, or if only one of the sites and buildings is revoked, the owner