배당이의
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: Gap evidence submitted at the court of first instance which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion, and Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 7 (including paper numbers) which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion, and "the plaintiff" of the third party of the judgment of the court of first instance and the third party shall be dismissed as "the defendant", and except for the addition as follows, it is identical to the part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4
2.In addition, the following shall be added to the fifth of the first instance judgment:
The plaintiff asserts that even if the defendant had claims against D, the act of entering into a loan agreement for consumption between the defendant and D for the repayment of existing obligations and preparing a notarial deed to the effect that D accepts compulsory execution against D constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to D's general creditors' interests, including the plaintiff, by having the defendant distribute claims in preference to or in the same order.
On the other hand, a creditor’s claim for the repayment of an obligation is a natural exercise of his/her right, and this does not interfere with the existence of another creditor, and the debtor also cannot refuse to perform his/her obligation on the ground that there exist other creditors. Thus, in an auction procedure for the debtor’s property, in cases where the debtor entered into a loan agreement for consumption to the creditor and entered into a notarial deed stating the purport of accepting compulsory execution upon the creditor’s request, which requires an execution title in order to equally distribute the debtor’s property, and barring any special circumstance, such act may constitute a fraudulent act detrimental to other creditors, unless it is deemed that the debtor actually transfers his/her responsible property to a specific creditor.