부당이득금
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 this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion emphasized by the defendant in this court, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article
(The grounds for appeal by the defendant are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and the fact-finding and decision in the first instance court are deemed legitimate even if the defendant considered the additional evidence submitted by the defendant to this court.
A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant paid the principal and interest of the obligation or the employee’s benefits by subrogation or by subrogation of a company engaging in competition, and that the Defendant won the case in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act filed against a company engaging in competition and the Defendant, etc., the instant assignment of claims did not constitute a fraudulent act, but did not have any intention to cause harm to the Defendant.
B. According to the evidence No. 13 of the judgment, it is acknowledged that the court rejected the assertion of the Busan Central District Court on the ground that, on January 11, 2016, 2016, it was based on the following facts: (a) in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a fraudulent act filed against the company and the defendant, the company borrowed money continuously from the defendant after the conclusion of the contract, and used it as the payment for the per share sheet issued by it for the transaction; and (b) in light of the fact that the above contract was concluded as a means of offering funds to the defendant for the purpose of securing the ability to repay debts, it cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act since it was inevitable in the course of financing funds to secure the ability to repay debts, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016No33934, hereinafter referred to as "related lawsuit").