The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

A creditor’s right to demand repayment of an obligation, as a natural exercise of his/her right, does not interfere with the performance of obligation on the ground that there exists another creditor, and the debtor also cannot refuse the performance of obligation on the ground that there is another creditor. Thus, in cases where the debtor prepares and prepares a notarial deed to the effect that he/she accepts compulsory execution at the request of the creditor, barring any special circumstance to deem that such act does not differ from the actual transfer of his/her own responsible property to the creditor

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da103376 Decided December 22, 2011). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the instant preparation of authentic deeds cannot be deemed a fraudulent act, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, on the grounds that it is difficult to view the act of preparing authentic deeds of this case as identical to the act of transferring responsible property, and there is no evidence to acknowledge any other special circumstances that can be deemed to be substantially identical with the transfer of responsible property to the Defendant.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of fraudulent act, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.