beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the plaintiff added "the judgment on the assertion that the plaintiff added or added to this court" as to the assertion that the plaintiff added or added to the court of first instance among the judgment of the court of first instance, it is identical with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's explanation as to this case shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[A] In a case where an obligor entered into a loan agreement for consumption and gave consent to compulsory execution for the repayment of an existing obligation to a creditor at the request of an obligee who requires an execution title in an auction procedure on a debtor's property, barring any special circumstance to deem that the act does not differ from the actual transfer of his/her responsible property to a specific creditor due to such act, it cannot be deemed a fraudulent act detrimental to other creditors, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the said act does not constitute a fraudulent act.
(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da103376 Decided December 22, 201). However, in a case where an insolvent debtor prepares a notarial deed stating the purport of accepting compulsory execution as to the existing debt with the aim of having a specific creditor with respect to a debt held by the debtor obtain a seizure and collection order, and the creditor obtains a seizure and collection order as to the debt of the debtor, the agreement between the creditor and the debtor, which caused the preparation of such notarial deed, constitutes a so-called repayment contract of the existing debt, which is a separate contract for the performance of the existing debt, and thus, constitutes a fraudulent act by impairing the interests of other general creditors.
(Supreme Court Decision 2009Da33884 Decided April 29, 2010).