1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if each additional evidence submitted to the court of first instance is presented to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning for the judgment in this case is that the court added "the results of the order to submit financial transaction information to the Hansan Saemaul Depository of the first instance court on April 11, 2018," and "the results of inquiry into the court administration of the first instance court on May 14, 2018" to add "the additional judgment on May 24, 2018" to "the addition of "2. Additional judgment" to the matters that the defendant particularly emphasized in the appellate court is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the first instance, so it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. As to B’s intent, the Defendant asserted to the effect that B had no intention to harm B, since B’s credit rating was recovered to Grade 5 as a result of the credit inquiry at the time of the instant consultation, and the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff was considered to have been settled for a long time, and thus, B did not recognize the excess of obligation.

However, as a requirement for obligee's right of revocation, the obligor's intention is aware of the fact that the obligor is at risk that it would be difficult for the obligee to receive reimbursement due to lack of joint security, and such recognition is sufficient in relation to the general obligee, and it does not require the awareness that it would prejudice a particular obligee.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102 Decided March 26, 2009, etc.). With respect to the instant case, the Health Board, B, at the time of the instant consultation, was liable to the Plaintiff for damages of 21% per annum for the principal amounting to KRW 27,00,00,000 based on the Busan District Court Decision 2008Gadan49161, Busan District Court Decision 2008Da49161, and the fact that there was no active property other than the said inherited property is seen earlier.