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 that the defendant added the following "2. Additional Determination" to the argument that the defendant emphasizes in this court, "this court" to "the court of first instance" to "the court of first instance," and "the part 7. 2 to 4" to "the part used by the court of first instance" and "the part used by the court of first instance" to "the part used by the court of first instance" to 7. 2 to 4. Thus, it is identical to the part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be accepted in accordance with the main sentence of
(However, the part on the co-defendant B that the plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn the lawsuit in this court is excluded). 2. Additional determination
A. The Defendant’s assertion that the sale and purchase of the instant real estate between C and the Defendant was made at a reasonable price in order to cover the respective debt repayment for C, a part of his creditors, Maritime Savings Bank (hereinafter “Maritime Savings Bank”) and B. Since the sale of the instant real estate did not cause C’s decrease in liability property due to the sale of the instant real estate, the instant sales contract between C and the Defendant does not constitute a fraudulent act.
B. Determination 1) In principle, an obligor’s act of selling real estate, which is the only property of one’s own, and changing it into money easily for consumption, constitutes a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da54420, Apr. 14, 1998). In a case where the purpose of selling the real estate is to obtain the repayment or the ability to repay the obligation, and the price is not unreasonable; and where it is actually used for or the ability to repay the obligation to creditors, barring any special circumstance, such act does not constitute a fraudulent act, barring special circumstances, such as where the obligor in collusion with some creditors to perform the obligation and thereby, has an intent to harm other creditors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da83992, Oct. 29, 2015).