사해행위취소 등
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's claim against the defendants is dismissed.
1. Basic facts
A. The relationship 1 of the parties concerned is a corporation established for the purpose of printing business, etc.; Defendant C is a director of the company; Defendant C is a corporation established for the purpose of export and import business; Defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of export and import business; Defendant J (hereinafter “J”) is a corporation established for the purpose of clothing wholesale and retail business; Defendant G (hereinafter “G”) is a corporation established for the purpose of automobile parts manufacturing business; and Defendant B is currently registered as Defendant E’s internal director. Meanwhile, Defendant B is currently registered as Defendant E’s internal director.
B. On October 22, 2007, Defendant E, a representative director at the time, from around 2006, borrowed money from Defendant D. However, on October 22, 2007, Defendant E issued a promissory note with Defendant E, a face value of KRW 4.1 billion, a due date of payment of which was October 30, 2007, and a promissory note with the payee C, and a notary public prepared a notarized deed as of No. 5209 on November 29, 2007, and delivered it to Defendant C in the name of J under the pretext of partial performance of the obligation to Defendant D’s Defendant D. < Amended by Act No. 8527, Nov. 29, 2007>
3) On September 10, 2009, Defendant E issued a copy of a promissory note with the issuer as Defendant E, the face value of KRW 1.4 billion, and the payee as G, and the notary public prepared and delivered a notarial deed as the law firm Il-sung, No. 66, 2009, and issued it to G. 4) on May 31, 2013, Defendant E transferred the above promissory note payment claim against Defendant E to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant E on the same day.
On the other hand, on May 31, 2013, G transferred “the claim for damages or the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the instant reimbursement” to the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Intervenor, against Defendant C, D, and E.