사해행위취소 등
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
With respect to real estate stated in the separate sheet between C and the defendant.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is that of the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that each of the instant contracts concluded between C and the Defendant is null and void by means of a false declaration of intent, or that at least C’s fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditor, should be revoked.
B. Whether each of the contracts of this case was null and void due to a false declaration of intent under each of the contracts of this case, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Gap evidence 3-1 through 4, Gap evidence 7-1 through 3, Gap evidence 10-1, 2, Gap evidence 11-8, Gap evidence 14, Eul evidence 14, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 6, and Eul evidence 7 are not sufficient to acknowledge that each of the contracts of this case of this case was a contract by a false declaration of intent under the mutual agreement between Eul and the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
C. Whether each of the contracts of this case constitutes a fraudulent act
(B) Real estate listed in the attached list of positive property: 2,405,937,060 won (2) at the market price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da5656, Apr. 25, 2000) in the debtor C’s financial status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da5656, Apr. 25, 200).