beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including a claim modified in the trial, shall be modified as follows:
Plaintiff
A Action.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning this case is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following cases. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts in height:
A. On the fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the 2nd part of the judgment “Plaintiffs” is deemed to be “Plaintiffs and Plaintiff D’s succeeding intervenors (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”).
B. On the fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the witness of the first instance is deemed to be a witness of the first instance court.
C. On the 5th page of the judgment of the first instance, Plaintiff B, C, and D are as follows: (3) Plaintiff B, C, and Plaintiff D’s succeeding Intervenor (hereinafter “ succeeding Intervenor”); (15) “D” of the 15th page of the 14th instance judgment is as follows; and (8) of the 18th page of the 14th instance judgment is as follows: “The Defendant’s main defense of this part is without merit.”
Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance is as follows: (a) No. 20 of the same Act is deemed as “a judgment as to the claims of the plaintiff B, C, and the succeeding intervenor”; and (b) the summary of the cause of the claim” is deemed as “a summary of the cause
E. From No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance to No. 4 of the first instance to No. 11 of the same pages are as follows.
The third successor intervenor has a total of KRW 90 million loan claim against F. F. F. F. The F entered into the instant mortgage contract with the Defendant under the condition of insolvency by bearing a large amount of debt to many creditors, including Plaintiff B, C, and successor intervenors. This constitutes a fraudulent act that causes or deepens creditors’ joint security. Therefore, the instant mortgage contract should be revoked as a fraudulent act. As such, the Defendant should pay the remaining principal and interest on the relevant remaining loan and its delay damages to the Plaintiff B, C, and successor.
F. From 6th of the judgment of the court of first instance, the first-class 17 to 7th of the judgment is as follows.
(2) No. 6 of the Intervenor A (50 million won).