1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is 3.B of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance.

In addition to the following cases, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Parts to be dried;

B. Whether a fraudulent act constitutes a fraudulent act under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act (1). Since the first priority repayment right of small-amount deposit under the Housing Lease Protection Act provides a kind of statutory security right that can be paid in preference to claims secured by mortgages against the leased apartment house, taxes, etc., the debtor's act of setting the right of lease under the above Article on the only house owned by the debtor in excess of debt constitutes an act of offering collateral in excess of debt, which causes a decrease in the debtor's whole property, and therefore, the act of establishing the right of lease is subject to revocation of the fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da5071, May 13, 2005). In this case, considering the health stand, evidence No. 7 and the testimony of the witness C, the debtor was in excess of the active property at the time of the lease agreement on the apartment of this case, and C constitutes a fraudulent act under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act which causes decrease in the debtor's whole property. Therefore, C's act is presumed to be detrimental to the debtor's bad faith or bad faith.