beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
[Claim]
Reasons
1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as they are, given that the reasoning of the
2. The height of the judgment of the court of first instance at the same time shall be from 4th to 6th day below as follows.
B. Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides a kind of statutory security right that can be paid in preference to claims secured by mortgages and taxes, etc. on the leased house. Thus, the debtor's act of setting up the right of lease under the above Act on the only house owned by the debtor while in excess of the debt constitutes an act of providing security under excess of the debt, which causes the decrease of the debtor's whole property, and therefore the act of establishing the right of lease is subject to revocation of the fraudulent act.
In a case where a real estate on which a mortgage is established is transferred by means of a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da50771, May 13, 2005), such fraudulent act is the value of the real estate, that is, the market value (it does not coincide with the publicly announced
(A) The amount of the secured debt here is established within the scope of the balance obtained by deducting the amount of the secured debt from the amount of the mortgage, and if the amount of the secured debt exceeds the value of the real estate, the transfer of the secured debt concerned cannot be deemed a fraudulent act. The amount of the secured debt here is not the maximum debt amount but the amount of the secured debt in the case of the right to collateral security (Supreme Court Decision 2000Da42618, Oct. 9, 201) and the actual amount of the debt already occurred (Supreme Court Decision 200Da42618, Oct. 9, 200). In full view of the entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 3, 7, 8, 9, and 10, the market price of the apartment of this case around August 20, 2014, which was at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, is KRW 320,00