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: (a) the defendant’s argument is added as set forth in paragraph (2) below and part of the judgment of the first instance as set forth in paragraph (3) is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. The part to be determined additionally, the Defendant lent the name of C to obtain the instant real estate from M. The Defendant asserts that the instant real estate was initially trusted by the Defendant to C, and thus does not constitute a fraudulent act, since it does not constitute a property held in title C’s responsibility.
As the main text of Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name applies to real estate, where the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the debtor who is a title trustee is null and void, such real estate is not owned by the debtor, and it cannot be deemed as a responsible property provided to the general creditors’ joint security. Even if the debtor concluded a sales contract with a third party on the real estate and completed the registration of transfer of ownership to that third party, it cannot be deemed that the debtor caused a decrease in the debtor’s responsible property. Thus, it cannot be
(2) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the title trust of the instant real estate on July 2011, 201. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the title trust of the instant real estate on the following grounds: (a) the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the title trust of the instant real estate to C around 2011; and (b) the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the title trust of the instant real estate by misapprehending the legal principles as to the title trust of the instant real estate.