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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable and acceptable.
[Provided, however, the part concerning the joint defendant A (corporate registration number H), C (corporate registration number I), and D] of the first instance court which did not appeal. 2. As to the argument in the appellate court
A. 1) The claim that can be protected by the defendant's right to revoke the fraudulent act should, in principle, arise prior to the act that can be seen as a fraudulent act. However, the plaintiff paid the claim on October 19, 2016, which was ten months prior to the date of the instant sales contract, by subrogation of A and acquired the claim for reimbursement. Also, there is no reason to deem that there is a high probability that the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement is likely to occur prior to the date of exceptional circumstances. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement cannot be the preserved claim for the right to revoke the fraudulent act. (ii) The plaintiff's claim for reimbursement can not be the preserved claim for the right to revoke the fraudulent act. However, in principle, there is a need to be an action that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, there is a high probability that at the time of the fraudulent act, there is a legal relationship which already serves as the basis of the establishment of the claim, and that the claim is established in the near future.
(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da27905 Decided November 28, 1995 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da27905, Nov. 28, 1995). In addition to the purport of the entire statements and pleadings set forth in Article 14-17, U.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “U”) was wrong on the ground of the overdue interest payment on March 28, 2016, and A also took place on May 24, 2016.
As alleged by the Defendant, even if the date of concluding the instant sales contract was December 10, 2015, the facts recognized earlier and the judgment of the first instance court.