beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. The reasons why this Court shall state this part of the underlying facts are as follows: “Defendant A” as “A; “Defendant B” as “Defendant”; and it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the case where “Defendant B” as “Defendant”; thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Determination
A. According to the fact that the existence of the secured claim is acknowledged, the credit guarantee contract of this case was concluded at the time of entering into the instant promise for sale and purchase, which serves as the basis for the Plaintiff’s occurrence of the claim against A, and the time of entering into the said promise for sale and purchase and sale constitutes a fraudulent act reduction of liability in relation to the Plaintiff, which is a general creditor of A, for a period of two months prior to June 14, 2014, which has ceased to pay the principal and interest of the loan, and thus has been lost due to the aggravation of the financial status of A, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against A was established as it is highly probable in the near future. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against the Defendant was established. (2) The act of entering into each registration procedure with respect to real estate in the separate list, which appears to have a close relationship with A, constitutes a fraudulent act reduction of liability in relation to the Plaintiff, which is a general creditor of A, barring any special circumstance, and is presumed as a buyer of the Defendant.
B. The defendant's bona fide defense was alleged to be a bona fide beneficiary since he had a loan claim amounting to KRW 30,000,000 in total at the time of the conclusion of the contract, etc. of this case, and thus, he concluded a sales contract, etc. on each real estate stated in the separate sheet as payment in kind. However, the defendant's assertion or evidence No. 1-4 of this case is alleged to be a bona fide beneficiary.