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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in cases where it is stated in paragraph (2).

2. The “rest damage” at the bottom of one side of the second part shall be raised to “rest damage”.

3-4 to 5 shares of 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant real estate”) are as follows: “The purchase price of KRW 293 million shall be KRW 290 million with respect to shares of KRW 1/2 out of the instant real estate.”

The “the instant forest land” at the bottom of 4 to 5 shall be raised into “E forest”.

4. The 4th page is the fact that there is no dispute (based on recognition), Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 12, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1, the fact inquiry results against the head of interesting Gu of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings.

The 4th 4th 13th 15th 15th 15th 15th 15th 15th 2th 2th 3th 2th 3th 3th 2th 3th 2th 3th 3th 3th 3th 2

The 5th parallel 2 to 4th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel.

A person shall be appointed.

B. The debtor's act of selling real estate, which is the only property of his own, and changing it into money which is easily consumed is a fraudulent act, barring special circumstances. The debtor's intent to commit a fraudulent act refers to recognizing that there is a shortage of joint collateral for the debtor's claim, which is a subjective element of a fraudulent act, and does not require any intent or intent to harm the creditor, and where the sale of real estate, which is the only property of the debtor, and the sale of real estate, and alteration into money which is easily consumed, the debtor's intent to commit a fraudulent act is presumed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da84458, May 14, 2009).