1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for the recognition of the judgment of the first instance are as follows: (a) the same date and the same date shall be read as “the same December 7, 2010” in the second and nine pages of the judgment of the first instance; and (b) the reasons for the recognition of the judgment are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the first instance; and (c) thus, they shall be cited pursuant

The defendant asserts that ① the defendant's loan claims against B are not false claims, ② the defendant did not know the existence of the judgment claim against B at the time of issuance of the Promissory Notes, or that the defendant did not know the existence of the judgment claim against B or the status of exceeding B's obligation.

However, in light of the circumstances that the Defendant transferred the money received from Samsung Bio-resources to the account in the name of C, the husband at that time, based on the instant assignment order (the Defendant’s assertion that the money was leased to B once again goes against the empirical rule), etc., which can be known by the statement in the evidence No. 4, the Defendant’s issuance of the Promissory Notes against the Defendant is merely deemed as the act of bearing false burden to evade compulsory execution.

In addition, considering the circumstances mentioned above, it is reasonable to view that the issuance of the Promissory Notes in excess of the debt amount to the Defendant and the Defendant’s assignment of the instant claim to the Defendant is not different from the transfer of the instant claim in substance from that of the Defendant, even if the Defendant’s loan claim against B was actually established.

However, the above act of assuming debt obligations is a fraudulent act detrimental to the interests of other general creditors.

In addition, the defendant argues that he is a bona fide beneficiary as above, and does not properly prove that he is a bona fide beneficiary.

Rather, the above circumstances, however, the Defendant, from around 2004, has been engaged in monetary transactions with B from time to time, and the Defendant also stated that B had aggravated self-sufficiency to the extent that the interest on the loan was unable to be paid properly.