배당이의 등
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. On the ground of appeal No. 1, based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity can be the preserved claim for revocation of the fraudulent act of this case, on the ground that there was a high probability as to the conclusion of the credit guarantee agreement and the joint and several liability contract under the credit guarantee agreement and B, which serve as the basis for establishing the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity at the time of establishing each of the instant mortgage agreements, and that the
Examining the records in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s recognition and judgment are justifiable.
There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of preserved claims.
Other argument in the grounds of appeal is a new argument in the final appeal, and thus cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.
2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that “B, the representative director of E Co., Ltd., takes the best way to loan funds from the Defendant to promote the business of the said company, and concluded each of the instant mortgage agreements, thereby not constituting a fraudulent act.”
Examining the records in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s recognition and judgment are justifiable.
There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of fraudulent act.
The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal have different cases and are not appropriate to be invoked in this case.
3. As to the third ground for appeal, the beneficiary was unaware of the fraudulent act in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act.