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 judgment of the court of first instance cited the same part as the written judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts, as stated in the B(B) of the judgment of the court of first instance (Nos. 4, 1, 5, and 2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts to be dried;
B. On July 13, 2016, the Defendant’s bona fide defense 1) leased a commercial building of the building Busan Shipping Daegu E, Busan, for the purpose of operating carpets, and thereafter, the construction was carried out from the time of the lease. C borrowed KRW 90,00,000 from the Defendant several times in order to secure the claim amounting to KRW 90,00,000. The Defendant merely carried out the instant mortgage contract to secure the claim amounting to KRW 90,000,000. The Plaintiff’s claim amounting to the Busan District Court Decision 2009Da31464 was delivered by service of the lawsuit documents and the judgment. Therefore, the Defendant could not have known the existence of the above judgment claim. Accordingly, the Defendant was unaware of the circumstance that the obligor’s act of offering security to a third party by the Plaintiff et al. was objectively presumed to constitute a fraudulent act, and thus, the obligee could not prove the legal act at the time of the beneficiary’s bona fide act.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da12526, Jun. 13, 2003). In a case where an obligor’s act of disposal of property against a third party constitutes a fraudulent act, there should be objective and objective evidence, etc. supporting that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of such fraudulent act, and only the obligor’s unilateral statement or a statement that is merely a third party’s prosecution, at the time of such fraudulent act.