logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.01.25 2018나2025852
배당이의
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation as to this case is that of the first instance judgment, except where the defendant added a judgment as to the argument that the defendant raised as the grounds for appeal as stated in paragraph (2), and therefore, it is identical to that of the first instance judgment. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main sentence

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In light of the legal principles, such as Supreme Court Decision 201Da10376 Decided December 22, 2011, the Defendant asserts that the instant notarial deed preparation contract between C and the Defendant does not constitute a fraudulent act, in principle, inasmuch as the obligee’s claim for the repayment of the existing obligation does not interfere with the obligee’s exercise of his right, on the ground that there is another obligee’s existence of another obligee, and the obligor cannot refuse the performance of obligation on the ground that there is another obligee.

However, this case is not simply a case where the debtor prepares a notarial deed for the repayment of existing debts, but it is a case where the debtor in insolvent prepares a notarial deed stating the purport of accepting compulsory execution concerning the existing debts in order to have the debtor repay the debts in fact through compulsory execution procedures by receiving a seizure and collection order for the claims held by the debtor, and the creditor obtains a seizure and collection order for the claims. In this case, the notarial deed preparation contract constitutes a so-called repayment contract, which is a separate contract for the performance of existing debts, and thus constitutes a fraudulent act by impairing the interests of other general creditors.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da33884 Decided April 29, 2010). B.

The defendant asserts that C had no intention of deception.

(b).

arrow