1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

The reasoning for the court's explanation on the instant case is as follows: (a) the part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment (excluding the part concerning the judgment on the main safety defense withdrawn by the defendant in the trial) in addition to the addition of the following judgments, which is insufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion as being the evidence additionally submitted in the trial; (b) and (c) the same is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the first instance judgment (excluding the part concerning the judgment on the main safety defense withdrawn by the defendant in the trial). Therefore,

【The Defendant asserts that, as one of the creditors in C’s creditors, the instant claim transfer and takeover contract of this case was concluded, and was made for the purpose of a contract as a new transferee, and the amount of 65.5 million won equivalent to the actual purchase price was paid to C, the above claim transfer and takeover contract of this case cannot be deemed a fraudulent act. However, the obligor’s act of selling and selling real estate, which is its sole property, and changing it into money which is easy for the obligor to consume is a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001). This legal principle is identical to a case where the sole property is a claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da43909, Jul. 22, 2005) and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the instant claim transfer and takeover contract of this case is a fraudulent act, and therefore, the Defendant’s allegation is without merit.