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 court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the defendant added the following judgments in relation to the assertion of addition or supplement in the court of first instance, the reasoning of the court’s ruling is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the court of first instance. Thus, this is also cited by including the summary thereof in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was that the ownership of each of the instant real estate was transferred to the Defendant as payment in lieu of the total amount of KRW 320,000,000 in loans to B. Since the transaction value of each of the instant real estate at the time falls short of the amount of the Defendant’s loan claim against B, the instant sales contract concluded for payment in substitutes does not constitute a fraudulent act.
In addition, the defendant is a bona fide beneficiary since he was unaware of the circumstance that B was in excess of his debt or that B would prejudice B's creditors due to the sales contract of this case.
B. Determination 1) In a case where the debtor's property is insufficient to repay all of his/her obligation, if the debtor provided his/her property to a certain creditor as payment in kind or as a security, barring any special circumstance, it would be prejudicial to the interests of other creditors, and thus, constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, barring any special circumstance, and even if the above property provided as payment in kind or as a security is not the debtor's exclusive property, or its value falls short of the amount of the claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da85161, Sept. 10, 2009). In light of the above legal principles, even if B transferred the ownership of each of the real property in this case to the defendant in payment in kind, it constitutes a fraudulent act as it harms the interests of other creditors, and it cannot be viewed differently solely on the ground that the transaction value of each