beta
Text
1.The part of the judgment of the first instance against Defendant A, including the claim extended at the trial, is as follows:
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant A
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The primary claim cause D donated each of the instant funds to Defendant A, and D’s donation of each of the instant funds to Defendant A must be revoked by fraudulent act detrimental to the obligees including the Plaintiff, and Defendant A is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 538,00,000 of the instant funds due to restitution to its original state. Even if D cannot be deemed to have donated each of the instant funds to Defendant A, the act of payment of each of the instant funds listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 4 of the instant funds constitutes a fraudulent act for the purpose of evading compulsory execution by making it difficult or impossible for other creditors to enforce compulsory execution against D’s assets.
In addition, even if Defendant A’s assertion is accepted as it is, the payment of each of the money listed in [Attachment 7, 8, and 9] in [Attachment 7] list constitutes an act of prior repayment for a specific claim to be incurred by Defendant D’s performance of a guarantee obligation for the repayment of the deposit for the deposit against Defendant D M in the future. It should be revoked as it constitutes an act of prior repayment for the purpose of preferential repayment.
In addition, due to such cancellation, Defendant A is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff each money, key money, etc. listed in attached Table 1 through 4.
B. If an obligor of the relevant legal doctrine regarding the Plaintiff’s primary cause of claim donated his/her property to another person in excess of his/her obligation, such act would constitute a fraudulent act against the obligee, barring any special circumstance.