beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Plaintiff A and B shall be modified as follows.
Attached Form
List 1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. The plaintiff C is additionally submitted by this court. It is insufficient to recognize that the defendants conspired to forge each of the above documents by forging and sealing the application form for cancellation of provisional disposition in the name of the plaintiff C and the proxy form of the plaintiff C's seal imprint on the letter of delegation. Thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the rejection of the entry of evidence No. 13 as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of first instance.
2) Whether the instant mortgage contract on real estate 1 constitutes a fraudulent act is alleged by the parties (i) the claims of the parties, even if there were claims of the Plaintiff A and B regarding the establishment of a mortgage on the instant real estate, I and J concluded the instant mortgage contract with the Defendants for the purpose of borrowing money from the Defendants in excess of debt with the aim of receiving a preferential payment of the proceeds of sale in preference to Plaintiff A and B, and thus, the instant mortgage contract on real estate 1 constitutes a fraudulent act.
Therefore, this case’s mortgage contract concerning real estate No. 1 is cancelled and its restoration is sought to correct the dividend table of this case.
B. The Defendants’ assertion I and J considered the best way to continue the construction of the first real estate by financing from the Defendants, and concluded the instant mortgage contract in order to borrow KRW 500,000,000 from the Defendants. As such, the instant mortgage contract cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act.
In addition, even if the mortgage contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, the Defendants did not know that the mortgage contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act.