사해행위취소
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of first instance, except for the following addition, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it according to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The addition;
A. The following is added to the 10th 8th 10 line “4,347,067.”
[The plaintiff's secured debt of the former right to collateral security is loaned by C to build a new building of this case for the purpose of running a common life of the married couple. Thus, the above borrowing act is a juristic act related to daily home and the defendant, who is the spouse, bears joint liability for the repayment of the above loan amount. Therefore, the value of the part provided as joint collateral of the obligees among the buildings of this case should be KRW 83,753,841, which is calculated in proportion to the value of the building of this case, which is the joint collateral, after deducting the secured debt amount.
The term "legal act concerning daily home affairs" as referred to in Article 832 of the Civil Act refers to a legal act concerning the ordinary affairs which are needed in the community of the married couple. The specific scope shall be determined not only by the social status, property, and revenue capacity of the married couple community, but also by the custom of the community which is the place of the living of the married couple. However, in determining whether the specific legal act is a legal act concerning daily home affairs, it shall be determined not only by the internal situation of the married couple community which performed the legal act or by the individual purpose of the act, but also by the objective type, character, etc.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da8267 delivered on April 25, 2000). In light of the above legal principles, the health stand for the instant case and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are that the Defendant’s obligation guaranteed by the former collateral security was caused by a legal act concerning daily home affairs.