1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for the acceptance by the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the term “credit against F” as stated in the table of the first instance judgment No. 4 pages of the first instance judgment shall be confined to “claim against Young Mak-gun”; and (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized or added by this court is identical to the reasons for the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the following “additional judgment”, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Additional determination

A. Since the transfer of the claim for the construction price of this case between the Defendant’s assertion and C was made as the repayment of the obligation to the Defendant, in principle, it does not constitute a fraudulent act, and whether the Defendant and C in collusion with the Defendant have the intent to impair other creditors, and the Defendant’s bad faith, etc. bear the burden of proof against the Plaintiff, so the transfer contract of this case with respect to the claim for the construction price of this case may not be revoked as a fraudulent act, unless

B. Determination 1) As alleged by the Plaintiff, even in a case where the joint security of other creditors is reduced by the debtor’s repayment based on the principal of the obligation to a specific creditor in excess of his/her obligation, such repayment does not constitute a fraudulent act, unless the debtor, in collusion with some of his/her creditors, performed performance with the intent to prejudice other creditors, as a matter of principle, unless the debtor performed performance. The same applies to the transfer of other monetary claims in lieu of the repayment of the existing monetary obligation. In particular, the issue of whether the debtor performed performance or assignment of claims with the intent to harm other creditors in collusion with some of his/her creditors ought to be proved by the person who asserts that it constitutes a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da60822, May 28, 2004).