Whether the exercise of the right to revoke the fraudulent act and the maturity of the preserved claim has expired;

The fraudulent act is sufficient if there are other claims at that time, and whether or not the repayment period of such claims has expired or not, there is no complaint to exercise the right of revocation.

Article 424 of the former Civil Code

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Defendant

This case is dismissed.

Litigation costs incurred after the trial is instituted shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant representative shall revoke the original judgment. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff's representative shall be borne by the plaintiff through the first and second trials. The plaintiff's representative shall be dismissed's dismissal judgment.

As of January 26, 288, Nonparty 1, an agent of both parties, etc., bears a large amount of debt with global wave while operating various fields of accounts, and Nonparty 1, as of January 26, 2288, was liable for a large amount of debt against Plaintiff 1, 523,000 won against Plaintiff 2, 973,500 won against Plaintiff 3, 336,500 won against Plaintiff 4, 167,600 won against Plaintiff 5,500 won against Plaintiff 6, 550,000 won against Defendant 6, 550,000 won against Defendant 6, 7 million won, and 2 million won from the old assets, which were the sole collateral of the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s act of selling the real property was against Defendant 1’s warranty against Defendant 1’s non-party 1’s non-party’s non-party’s assertion that it was impossible to secure the same obligation.

As of January 26, 4288, the defendant's claim against the non-party 1 for the money 646,900 as of January 26, 4288, and the fact that the defendant secured the sale of the house as of the plaintiff's claim is the time point that the defendant secured the sale of the house as of the plaintiff's claim, but

In other words, this case is not owned by Nonparty 1 but owned by Nonparty 1's husband, and the same husband has concluded a preferential guarantee agreement to guarantee the obligation for joint and several debt, so it cannot be deemed that the vehicle has reduced the general property of Nonparty 1. Even if that is not so, the fact that Nonparty 1 was liable for the debt like the Plaintiff et al. against the Plaintiff et al. is the defendant's site, and even if there was a domestic debt, the Defendant knew of the circumstances at the time of the acquisition of the collateral, so it cannot be a fraudulent act. In addition, at the time of the agreement, the Dong et al. paid 2,00,000 claims to the Plaintiff et al., so it cannot be deemed the only property of this case, and at the time of the agreement, the collateral agreement does not reach the maturity of the claims of the Plaintiff et al. at the time of the agreement.

Based on the method of proof, the agent of the plaintiff et al. submitted the evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and used the testimony of non-party Nos. 1, 2, and non-party Nos. 1 (ex-delivery of the witness of the court below) and the evidence Nos. 1 were presented as a site, and the defendant et al. submitted the evidence No. 1 and used the testimony of non-party Nos. 3, 4, and non-party Nos. 3 and 1 (ex-delivery of the witness of the court below) as a

Comprehensively taking account of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and testimony of non-party No. 2 and non-party No. 1 (transfer after exchange) which can be recognized as the testimony of the witness non-party No. 1, the non-party No. 1 is entitled to reverse the debt of 1,200,000 won at the market price at the time of the plaintiff's testimony, and the non-party No. 1 is the non-party No. 1's joint and several sureties evidence No. 1, and the non-party No. 2 and the non-party No. 1's testimony of the court below. 26 of Jan. 26, 4288. The non-party No. 1 is the non-party No. 1's property guaranteed by the non-party No. 8's testimony that the non-party No. 1 acquired the non-party No. 1's debt of 1,3000,000 won.

According to the above recognition, the non-party 1 had a debt of KRW 7 million with the plaintiff and the defendant, etc., and even though the property was 140/150,000,000 won in this case and the non-party 1's main house and the non-party 1's house were not located, it cannot be viewed as a fraudulent act by the debtor who has damaged the general security rights of other creditors such as the plaintiff, etc., and the defendant's testimony by the non-party 3 of the original trial witness, which is consistent with this argument, was argued that the non-party 3 did not know the circumstances that harm other creditors, but there is no evidence that the non-party 3, who was the defendant or the defendant's representative, did not know that the non-party 1 had a debt of KRW 7 million in this case as a fraudulent act. Thus, since the defendant's representative did not have the obligation to pay for the plaintiff, etc. at the time of this case's sale security agreement, it is improper that the plaintiff's claim for cancellation is improper.

Judges Lee Il-il (Presiding Judge)