beta
(영문) 부산고등법원 2017.01.18 2016나51828

제3자이의

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The grounds for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the "attached Form 2" in Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed as "attached Form 2"; and (b) the defendant's new decision on the new argument that was made in the court of first instance is identical to the part against the defendant among the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The defendant's assertion on the following grounds, the defendant asserts that compulsory execution against corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet should be allowed pursuant to the Busan District Court's Busan District Court's 2014Gahap3992, the title of execution of the instant case, based on the ruling of recommending reconciliation.

1) A movable property transfer agreement concluded on September 23, 2014 between H and G is null and void by a false declaration of intent in collusion. Even if such agreement is not so, it is likewise null and void as it did not have a resolution of the H board of directors or its representative director abused the power of representation. Furthermore, the agreement on the transfer of claims and corporeal movables concluded on July 27, 2015 between G and the Plaintiff is also null and void as a false declaration of intent.

B. First, this Court’s order to submit each financial transaction information to the Busan Bank, the National Bank, the Nonghyup Bank, and the Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd. was merely a result of the order of submission of each financial transaction information between H and G, and it is insufficient to recognize that both the movable property transfer contract and the bonds and corporeal movables transfer contract concluded on September 23, 2014 between H and the Plaintiff concluded on July 27, 2015 as null and void due to a false declaration of intent, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Furthermore, even if H entered into a movable property transfer contract with G without the resolution of the board of directors (the Defendant did not submit evidence to prove that it entered into a movable property transfer contract with G after the resolution of the board of directors), G knew or knew of this fact.