beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of this court concerning this part of the underlying facts is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in cases where the Plaintiff, the second 16th son of the judgment of the court of first instance, changed the trade name of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., Ltd. to the “Seojin ethyl Co., Ltd., Ltd.,” and changed the trade name of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. on November 4, 201, but changed to the name of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., Ltd. on October 16, 2014.”
2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims
A. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion that the debtor company issued each of the Promissory Notes in this case to the defendant and ordered the defendant to seize or seize all of the price claims of the construction in this case to the defendant is a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiffs, who are creditors. Thus, the issuance of each of the Promissory Notes in this case shall be revoked within the scope of KRW 108,416,827,
B. 1) According to the facts of the recognition of the existence of the preserved claim, the Plaintiffs are aware that they have each obligation against the debtor company for the purchase of goods or loans. The Plaintiffs’ respective claims are arising prior to the issuance of each of the instant promissory notes. (ii) Whether they constitute a fraudulent act is established under the subject-matter of the obligee’s right of revocation; (iii) from the beginning, the obligor assumes the obligation with the intent of having a specific creditor bear the obligation from the beginning with the intent of having the specific obligee seize and seize the obligor’s active property by taking the form of compulsory execution; and (iv) the obligee prepares a notarial deed stating the purport of accepting compulsory execution; and (v) the obligee is subject to seizure and all of the obligor’s claims using it. However, in substance, the fraudulent act may be established even in cases where there are special circumstances to deem that the obligor’s claims