beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the part of “(2) of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning Defendant C’s defense” in the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(Defendant D, E, F basically repeats the same arguments in the first instance court. The first instance court’s judgment is justifiable even if the above Defendants considered the allegations and the reasons why some supplements were made in the trial, and the statements in the evidence Nos. 11 through 14, No. 19, and No. 19, and No. 20, which are newly submitted in the trial, were examined.
2. (2) Defendant C, in the first instance trial, lent B’s name from December 2, 2006 to 2007, prior to the conclusion of the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee agreement, and purchased the real estate of this case with the disposal proceeds of the inherited property held at the time. The first real estate of this case was owned by Defendant C from its original date since around 2007, and the time point of time of the sales contract for the first real estate of this case of Defendant C was earlier than the date of the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee agreement. As the time of the sales contract for the first real estate of this case was earlier than the date of the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee agreement, Defendant C asserted that the first real estate of this case was not subject to cancellation as a fraudulent act, but the first real estate of this case was purchased by Nonparty C for B for the purpose of this case, but waived the sales right of the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee agreement, and only U.S. paid the sales proceeds in full and was changed by Defendant C’s payment to U.S.
The evidence Nos. 12-1 through 3, 8, 13, 14-1, 2, 15-1, 2, and 18, the fact inquiry results against the Korea Land and Housing Corporation by this court, and the witness testimony by U.S. witness in the trial as a whole.