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 grounds alleged by the defendant in the court of first instance while filing an appeal are not significantly different from those alleged by the defendant in the court of first instance, and even if both the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the fact-finding results on the center of the court of first instance, the judgment of the court of first instance rejecting the defendant's assertion is justified.
Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as described in the following Paragraph 2 to the argument that the Defendant emphasizes by re-convening in the trial room. As such, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendant’s assertion that “B” is an actual operator of “A” is not a fraudulent act, since the Defendant borrowed funds from the Defendant to use them for A’s business funds for the purpose of the rehabilitation of A, which is temporarily difficult financial standing. As such, the mortgage agreement that B entered into between the Defendant and the Defendant on December 26, 2014 regarding real estate stated in the separate sheet is not a fraudulent act
B. Determination 1) An obligor’s act of offering real estate owned by him/her to any one of the creditors constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, barring any special circumstance. However, barring any special circumstance, it is the best way for an obligor to continue his/her business by financing funds in a situation in which it is difficult to continue his/her business due to financing, and barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, an obligor’s act of creation of security interest does not constitute a fraudulent act if the obligor provided specific creditors as security and received new funds additionally (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da83428, Dec. 23, 2015).