사해행위취소
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. On Nov. 1, 2014 between the defendant and C, added at the trial.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. Thus, this court’s reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for partial revision as follows. Thus, this is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
o. On the 7th judgment of the first instance court, “Conclusion of a contract for debt transfer” was followed by “Conclusion of a notarial deed containing the purport of accepting compulsory execution for the purpose of having the defendant obtain actual repayment of the above false claims through attachment and collection order against C, by means of attachment and collection order against C,” which is the agreement between the defendant and C on November 12, 2014, i.e., a debt repayment contract.
o. “The debt repayment contract of this case” shall be added to “the debt repayment contract of this case” following the “the debt transfer contract of this case” in the part 11 to 20 of the 7th judgment of the first instance court.
o In the 7th judgment of the first instance court, the absence of the issuance of the Promissory Notes in this case is considered as the "non-existence of the issuance of the Promissory Notes in this case".
o. Part 16 of the first instance court’s decision that “the act of issuing the Promissory Notes of this case” and the part of the “the act of issuing the Promissory Notes of this case” and the part of the “the act of issuing the Promissory Notes of No. 11 and No. 2-3” are deleted.
o No. 14 of the first instance court judgment No. 14, 6 "the fraudulent act" (hereinafter referred to as "the act of fraudulent act") and "the defendant prepared a notarial deed stating the purport of accepting compulsory execution as to the existing debt with the aim of having C obtain the seizure and collection order for the claim held by the third debtor, and having C obtain the seizure and collection order for the claim for treatment construction, thereby constituting a fraudulent act.
o The fact that the beneficiary was unaware of the fraudulent act in the revocation suit between the 14th judgment of the first instance court and the 6th to the 18th judgment is the beneficiary.