보증채무금 등
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. In full view of the evidence submitted in the first instance court which cited the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance and the evidence additionally submitted to this court, the fact-finding and judgment as to the claim against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance are legitimate. Thus, the court below's reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is "1. Basic facts and judgment" among the grounds of the judgment of the first instance in accordance with the main sentence of Article
3. The part regarding the judgment as to the claim against the defendant B is cited. The part regarding the dismissal on February, 200 constitutes a fraudulent act from "the final judgment of the court of first instance" to "the grounds of March 2).
The portion up to “(5), 17, and 20, up to 50) parts are as follows. In conclusion, A, a joint and several liability obligor, sold the instant real estate, which is the only property in excess of the obligation, to the Defendant and let C, the principal obligor, use the purchase price with repayment funds, etc. unrelated to the principal obligation, thereby deepening the degree of shortage in joint security for general creditors including the Plaintiff. Therefore, this constitutes a fraudulent act committed with the intent to prejudice other creditors including the Plaintiff.
''
3. The defendant asserts that the sales contract of this case also in this court is the best way to continue repayment and repayment of principal and interest by Gap's repayment of debt with the real estate purchase price in this case and by acquiring the ability to repay debt to creditors including the plaintiff through smooth business progress. Thus, the contract of this case is not a fraudulent act, and the defendant did not know that the real estate purchase of this case was detrimental to the plaintiff because he did not know the specific financial status of Eul and Eul.
Whether a joint and several sureties had an intention to know at the time of selling real estate shall be determined by the fact that the joint and several sureties knew that his property status is insufficient to secure the obligation of joint and several sureties for the creditor.