beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following determination as to this case, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The defendant asserts to the effect that the sale of the real estate in this case was made at a reasonable price and is not a fraudulent act, even if the FTB was to repay the credit loans to the FTB from the FT Bank, in view of the fact that the defendant was the representative director of the FTB, a corporation, the FTB, and the real estate in this case was discharged by the defendant.
According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 6 (including paper numbers), the remainder of 243,500,000 under the sales contract of this case is replaced by transfer and acquisition of collateral collateral (203,50,000,000 won, and collateral collateral collateral debt 40,000,000 won against G). However, considering that the defendant's credit loans to the C&C of the C&C as representative director, it is difficult to view that the purchase price of this case is justifiable even if it can be viewed that the defendant actually paid credit loans to the C&C of the F&C as the representative director, even though it can be viewed that the F&S corporation was actually the defendant paid credit loans to the C&C of the C&C.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
B. The defendant asserts that, at the time of acquiring the secured debt against the Sti Bank B, Cti Bank requested to repay the credit loans of KRW 50,000,000 to B and actually repaid the credit loans, the amount of KRW 50,00,000 should be treated as the secured debt of the right to collateral security and deducted the same amount as the secured debt of the right to collateral security, and even if not, the maximum debt amount of KRW 181,20,000 should be deducted, not the secured debt of the right to collateral security.
In the lawsuit of revocation of fraudulent act, the value compensation should be paid.