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 for the court's explanation of this case is as follows: "The debt amount B at the time was excluded from the obligation of indemnity against the plaintiff" in Part 5 at the bottom of Part 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and "the debt amount B at the time was decided by the above court on February 5, 2009, and the debt amount at the time was determined by Paragraph 2 at the time." The defendant's reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the additional determination of the matters claimed by the court of first instance in paragraph 2. Thus, it is cited pursuant
2. Additional determination
A. misunderstanding the legal principles on fraudulent act 1) Each of the instant debt repayment contracts is concluded in order to confirm the existence of existing loan claims against the Defendant B or to secure the payment thereof. It does not increase the small property.
B) After a considerable period of time from the date of each of the instant debt repayment contracts, the Defendant issued an order of seizure and all of the obligor orders after the considerable period of time, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was an objective of preferential repayment because it could not be deemed that there was an objective of preferential repayment because other creditors could receive a title of debt through legal means, such as payment order, etc.) for the above period of time. Moreover, it cannot be deemed that there was an objective of preferential repayment on the ground that there was another creditor, and that there was another creditor as an obligor, and that there was a difference in the repayment order due to debt collection efforts among creditors is naturally recognized. Thus, if the Defendant recognizes a fraudulent act solely on the ground that the Defendant exercised rights prior to the Plaintiff, rather than the Plaintiff, it goes against the principle of equality of creditors.) In light of all objective circumstances, each of the instant debt repayment contracts do not constitute a fraudulent act.