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
The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is that each of the “2013......” The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: “201...” The Defendant’s argument is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The summary of the defendant's argument regarding the argument that the fraudulent act does not constitute a fraudulent act of additional determination is that the defendant obtained a permit for sale of each of the instant real estate in the voluntary auction procedure in the name of an external money, through a title trust agreement, and if the ownership of the title B is valid, the defendant has the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment on the purchase price, and the defendant transferred the ownership of each of the instant real estate to the defendant in lieu of the repayment of the obligation to return unjust enrichment against the defendant, which constitutes a payment in kind
The payment in kind is made for the extinguishment of the obligation, and there is no difference between the repayment and the transfer from the name of the defendant to the name of the owner of each of the instant real estate in the name of the owner of the instant real estate, and the intent between B and the defendant to return the ownership of each of the instant real estate to the actual owner, and thus, it does not constitute a fraudulent act.
As alleged by the Defendant, the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant constitutes payment in kind where the registration of ownership transfer is made in favor of the Defendant.
Even if a debtor, in excess of his/her obligation, transfers active property to some of the creditors as a payment in kind, is, in principle, a fraudulent act in a relationship with other creditors, unlike the case where the debtor pays the obligation to a certain creditor according to the principal place of obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da43546, Sept. 13, 2012). Thus, the defendant's other opinion is the defendant.