사해행위취소
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
On June 20, 2016 between the defendant and the non-party A.
1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts added or written by the following paragraph (2). Thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional or modified parts
(a) On the 6th sentence of the first instance judgment, the following is added, and the 3th sentence “A debtor’s fraudulent act and intent of deception” is “C. debtor’s fraudulent act and intent of deception”, and the 7th sentence “Scope and Method of Restoration” is respectively “d. Scope and Method of Restoration.”
As seen earlier in the debtor's insolvency, A's active assets amounting to approximately KRW 2.12 million, and a small property amounting to at least KRW 2,576,39,129, a129. Accordingly, the defendant claimed that the sum of the market values of the real estate and the Seoul E at issue in this case exceeds KRW 2.19,00 million, and the lease deposit under subparagraph 301 of the Seocho-gu Seoul, Seoul, where A resides, exceeds KRW 1.105,500,000,000 and KRW 1.05,000,000,000 won, and KRW 2.1,000,000,000 won, and KRW 2,576,399,129,000,000,000,000 won, and KRW 3,500,000,000,000,000,00 won.