beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
annex . of claim.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment, is stated, ① the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance.
Pursuant to Paragraph 3-4 of Article 3-4, the term "damage incurred by delay at the rate of 18.9% per annum from June 3, 2016 to June 3, 2016 with respect to KRW 34,384,196 among them" shall be charged as "damage incurred by delay at the rate of 18.9% per annum from June 3, 2016 to the date of full payment."
Paragraph (E) “E transferred the claim for the above loan to the Plaintiff on December 7, 2018, and the Plaintiff received delegation from E and notified the transfer of the claim to C on December 26, 2018, and the notification was delivered to C around that time.” The reasoning of the first instance judgment is 2-A.
The end of the claim states that “a fraudulent act shall be deemed a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001).” Meanwhile, the part concerning “a fraudulent act” is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of the part regarding “2. Additional determination” as to the argument emphasized or added by the Defendant in this court, the part regarding “2. Additional determination” is as follows.
2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, on January 19, 2015, C had concluded a lease deposit agreement of KRW 280,000,000,000,000 for the lease deposit and had a claim for the refund of the lease deposit amount of KRW 280,000,000,000, which was not in excess of the obligation at the time the instant donation agreement was concluded.
"Fraud subject to creditor's right of revocation" under Article 406 of the Civil Act refers to an act that causes damage to the creditor by causing the debtor to go beyond his/her obligation by reducing active property or increasing his/her negative property, or deepening the status of excess of his/her obligation. Whether the debtor is in excess of his/her obligation is determined at the time of the fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da64792, Jan. 12, 2012).