beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added a judgment on the assertion of additional lectures to this court under paragraph (2). Thus, this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. On March 23, 2017, Defendant B and the instant multi-family housing V Dong on March 23, 2017, during which the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) E had been in excess of his/her obligation (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
(1) The instant security trust contract was concluded with respect to the instant real estate, which is the only property, without any other property (hereinafter “instant security trust contract”).
A) This is the content that E entrusts the instant real estate to Defendant C and D at the same time in order to provide a specific creditor with a security. As such, even if Defendant B acted in good faith, it constitutes “private trust act” prohibited by Article 8 of the Trust Act. Furthermore, the first and second loan contracts under the instant security trust contract should also be revoked as a fraudulent act. 2) Even if E concluded the instant security trust contract for the purpose of continuing the instant project, there is no reason to receive additional loans from Defendant C andD after the completion of the instant apartment house. As the instant apartment house does not exist, X, etc., a constructor of the instant apartment house, did not receive progress payment from S on March 10, 2017 and receive progress payment of KRW 154,915,00, and there is no reason to receive additional loans from Defendant C and D. Therefore, the instant security trust contract itself does not constitute “X lien.”
B. The obligor who is in excess of the obligation of the relevant legal doctrine as to the judgment 1 is owned by him.