beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
(1) On the basis of the conjunctive claim added at the trial, the Defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasons why the court shall explain this part of the judgment on the basic facts and the primary claims are set forth in Article 1-d among the reasons for the judgment of the first instance court.
Inasmuch as the reasoning of the first instance judgment is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except that the phrase “72,80,000 won” as “65,72,240 won” of the first instance judgment as “65,72,240 won” of the first instance judgment, it shall be cited as it is by the main sentence of
2. Determination on the conjunctive claim
A. (1) The establishment of a fraudulent act (1) Since the right of priority repayment under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act grants a kind of statutory security right that can be repaid in preference to claims secured by mortgages and taxes, etc. on the leased house, the act of the debtor setting up the right of lease under the above Article on the only house owned by the debtor in excess of the debt is an act of offering security in excess of the debt, which causes a decrease in the debtor's whole property, and therefore the act of establishing the right of lease is subject
(2) The Plaintiff’s claim for the loan to C is a preserved claim for the exercise of the obligee’s right of revocation.
Furthermore, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 15, and 20, our card company, new card company, lot card company, KB card company, and each order to submit financial transaction information on the KB card company, as a result of each order to submit tax information on the KB card, and the whole purport of the pleadings as to the 85,000,000 won as active property at the time of the contract of this case, and the market price of the house of this case was 85,00,000 won as active property at the time of the contract of this case, and around 14,40,00 won as active property at the time of the contract of this case, and around 14,40,00 won as debt owed to the plaintiff, 6,917,506 won as to the new card company, 10,710,042 won as debt owed to the KB card company, and 10,710,575,757,7