beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3. The parties indicated in the judgment of the court of first instance are indicated.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, except where the defendant added a “additional Judgment” as to the assertion emphasized or added by the court of first instance, and thus, it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4
2. Additional determination
A. The establishment registration of each of the instant collateral contracts and each of the instant collateral contracts pertaining to the instant real estate asserted by the Defendant is the best means for the non-party company to continue its business by financing funds under the circumstances where it is difficult for the non-party company to continue its business due to financial difficulties, and thus, it does not constitute a fraudulent act.
B. An obligor’s act of offering real estate owned by him/her to any one of the creditors constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, barring special circumstances. However, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, an obligor’s act of creation of security interest does not constitute a fraudulent act if it is deemed that the obligor’s act of offering funds in a situation in which the continuation of business is difficult to proceed is the best way to exercise the ability to repay the obligor’s obligations, and if it was inevitable to provide certain creditors with real estate as collateral and obtain new funds additionally from the said creditors, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance. However, if the obligor’s act of offering the real estate owned by him/her to any one of the creditors
(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da25842 delivered on March 29, 2002). C.
Examining the case in light of the above legal principles, the non-party company continues to operate the business by financing funds only with the descriptions of the evidence No. 1-3 and No. 2-4.