1. At the request of an exchange change in the trial, the part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is as follows:

1. The reasons why this Court shall state this part of the basic facts are as follows: “Defendant A” as “A; “Defendant B” as “Defendant”; “Defendant B” as “Defendant”; and “E” among the third pages of the judgment of the first instance court.

The following shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 402 of the Civil Procedure Act inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of paragraph (1), except for the addition of the following:

[Supplementary Part] The Incheon District Court declared bankruptcy against A as of December 12, 2013, and appointed the plaintiff as the bankruptcy trustee of A as of December 2013.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “an act of having knowledge that the debtor would prejudice any bankruptcy creditor”, which is an act subject to avoidance under Article 391 subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, includes not only fraudulent act of reducing the bankruptcy estate by deviating from the bankruptcy estate by deviating from the general property of the debtor, which is the joint security of the total creditor, but also so-called biased act of hindering equal distribution among the bankruptcy creditors by affecting the debtor’s property relationship, such as repayment and provision of security to a specific creditor, and thereby making certain bankruptcy creditors favorable from dividends (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da56637, 56644, Oct. 13, 201). The expression “an act of knowing that the debtor would cause damage to the bankruptcy creditor” is sufficient at the time when the debtor becomes subject to avoidance, and there is sufficient awareness that the joint security property for the bankruptcy creditor is reduced or that the satisfaction of other bankruptcy creditors is diminished.

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement of Health Units, Evidence Nos. 8, 10, and Evidence Nos. 2 (including paper numbers) as to the instant case, A was the sole property of the instant apartment at the time of the instant sales contract, A was the obligation to claim reimbursement of KRW 28,945,661 against the Plaintiff, and KRW 39,00,000 against the Defendant.