1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding any judgment below, and therefore, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, thereby citing it in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the appeal by the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit.

《추가판단》 피고들은, 대법원 1995. 6. 9. 선고 94다32580 판결을 들면서 이 사건 매매계약은 이 사건 각 부동산에 설정된 근저당권부채무를 갚는 수단으로서 경매보다는 나은 처분방법으로 사해행위에 해당하지 않는다고 주장하나, 아래와 같은 이유로 받아들이지 않는다.

First, the above judgment contains a decision on a specific case that a fraudulent act may not be established in consideration of various circumstances where a debtor disposes of real estate in the process of auction on the condition that the payment date is imminent and at least is more than auction. It does not contain a general legal principle on the establishment of a fraudulent act.

Second, as seen earlier, the amount of the secured claim of the first secured mortgage does not exceed the market price of each real estate of this case. This is not merely a means to repay the secured claim of this case, but also a means to repay the secured claim of this case. It can be seen that the conclusion and execution of the sales contract of this case did not result in the lack of joint security of general creditors.

Third, it is insufficient to conclude that the sale price was set at a price lower than the market price on the sole basis of the statement No. 2 of the No. 310, and there is no other evidence.