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 court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the defendant added or emphasized the judgment of the court of first instance as to the assertion added or emphasized by this court as set forth in paragraph (2), and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion D concluded the instant mortgage contract for the purpose of continuing the transaction with the Defendant, so it is difficult to regard it as a fraudulent act with this view, and even if it constitutes a fraudulent act, the Defendant is bona fide.

B. 1) Even if the debtor had an intent to complete or continue a business, the act of offering collateral to one of his creditors to be postponed from the performance of the existing obligation without a new loan constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, barring any special circumstance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da104564, Apr. 29, 2010) Na 1, 9, and 10, and the testimony of witnesses of this court. In full view of the purport of the argument in this court, the defendant concluded a transaction agreement with D on February 26, 2013, and concluded a contract with D on an agricultural product transaction instead of a deposit of KRW 40,00,00,00 with D, which was supplied with a deposit of KRW 40,00,00, and thus requested to return the deposit and KRW 40,304,405,205, and thus, the defendant could not request D to return the deposit.

According to the above facts of recognition, D had the intent to revise the project or to continue the project.

D, however, was financed by new funds from the Defendant.