beta
Text
All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.
The purport of the claim and the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasons for this part of the underlying facts are as follows: (a) in addition to eliminating “(a)” from the judgment of the first instance on the grounds of conduct No. 5 to conduct No. 8; and (b) “16 to “the grounds for recognition” from the judgment of the first instance on the grounds of conduct No. 9; and (c) inasmuch as the corresponding part of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance on the grounds of Article 420 of the Civil
2. Determination
A. The establishment of a fraudulent act and the presumption of bad faith (1) creditor's exercise of the right to revoke (1) is not seeking the performance of an obligation, but for the purpose of preventing the reduction of financial capacity of the obligor for all creditors, and ensuring the effectiveness of the claim by recovering the deviates obligor's property. As long as the preserved claim is established before the act of deception, even if the amount and scope are not specifically determined, it can be a creditor's preserved claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da1045, Jun. 28, 2018). In such case, the amount of the preserved claim becomes final and conclusive after the act of deception.
Even if it is determined after the fact, the amount shall be determined after the fact.
In addition, a claim that can be protected by the creditor's right of revocation is, in principle, arising before the commencement of an act that can be seen as an act of deception. However, there is a high probability that there has already been a legal relationship which serves as the basis of the establishment of a claim at the time of the act, and that the claim is established in the near future because of its legal relationship. In the near future, where the probability is realized in the near future, the claim may also be the creditor's preserved right (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da68084, Jan. 13, 201, etc.) in light of the above legal principles (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da68084, Jan. 13, 201). According to the overall purport of the foregoing basic facts, the evidence and arguments presented earlier, the plaintiff's claim against E in advance under the business partnership agreement of this case in the related civil procedure.