beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
purport 1.1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of this court concerning this case is as follows. The new argument of the defendant in the trial of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding the following judgments as to the new argument of the defendant in the trial of the court of first instance under the 7th 9th 9th 9th 7th 9th see it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[2] Whether to commit a fraudulent act and whether to judge the defendant's bona fide assertion) the debtor's act of selling real estate, which is the only property of his own, and replacing it with money which is easily consumed or transferring it to another person without compensation, constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring special circumstances. Therefore, the debtor's intent to commit a fraudulent act is presumed, and the burden of proof that the purchaser or the transferee did not have bad faith is the beneficiary.
I would like to say.
(2) In light of the above legal principles, if the debtor provided his/her property to a certain creditor as payment in kind or as a collateral, barring any special circumstance, if the debtor provided his/her property to a certain creditor as payment in kind or as a collateral, it would immediately prejudice the interests of other creditors, and thus, constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da7873, Nov. 10, 2005; 2006Da12046, Jun. 15, 2006). B transferred the ownership of the real property of this case to the defendant without any specific property other than the real property of this case. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, it constitutes a fraudulent act even if it was a payment in kind by the defendant with respect to the property of this case to the defendant, as alleged by the defendant, and it is presumed that the defendant had no obligation to the defendant, other than the obligation against the defendant.