사해행위취소 등
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance, which the plaintiff asserted in the trial while appealed, are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if each of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is examined in light of the pleadings, the judgment of the court of
Therefore, the reasoning of this court's judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Therefore, it is decided to accept this by the main sentence of Article 420
2. On the 10th 8th 10th 10th 10th 8th 10th 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 2nd 2nd
Defendant E, even based on the content of the content-certified mail (Evidence A7) sent by the Plaintiff to Co-Defendant B, C, D, and Defendant E of the first instance trial, appears to have never existed at the time of conclusion of the contract for underwriting of the instant convertible bonds, shall add the following to the 11th page 3 of the first instance judgment.
11. The former representative L and Co-Defendant C of the first instance court, a general partner of the Plaintiff, agreed to invest KRW 1 billion in consideration of the Plaintiff’s investment in the first instance court Co-Defendant B in accordance with the underwriting agreement of the instant convertible bonds. The Co-Defendant C of the first instance court stated to the effect that in relation to the circumstances where the Defendant’s joint and several surety was exempted from the examination of the parties concerned in the first instance court’s principal of the case, “the Plaintiff’s demand for the return of the Plaintiff’s investment, but the Plaintiff’s demand for the Plaintiff’s guarantee was rejected, and the Defendant’s joint and several surety was exempted.” In fact, no guarantee from the Plaintiff’s side was provided in relation to the return of the Defendant’s investment amount, and 2. The Defendant Co-Defendant of the first instance court lost the interest of the principal and interest of the investment under the underwriting agreement of the instant convertible bonds.