1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is based on the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the alteration of "Defendant D" in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance to "D".

According to the facts above, prior to the existence of the preserved claim against the defendant, the plaintiffs met the joint and several liability obligations to the Seoul Guarantee Insurance and the D Home, thereby causing the plaintiff A, the plaintiff A, the plaintiff C, the plaintiff C, and the plaintiff B, the claim for indemnity amounting to KRW 50,000.

In addition, the Plaintiffs seek revocation of the instant sales contract concluded on June 24, 2015 with each of the above claims for reimbursement as the preserved claim, on the ground that it was a fraudulent act.

In principle, it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, at the time of such fraudulent act, there has already been legal relations that serve as the basis of the establishment of the claim, and there is high probability that the claim should be established in the near future by such legal relations, and in the near future, where a claim has been created as a result of its realization in the near future,

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da53704 delivered on February 25, 2000). According to the above facts, at the time of the instant sales contract, joint and several surety contracts, which serve as the basis for the claim for indemnity of the Plaintiffs, have already been concluded even though the claim for indemnity was not yet created at the time of the instant sales contract.

In addition, even though the lease contract between D and Awork Home was terminated on June 15, 2015, D was unable to perform the obligation to return the deposit to Dwork Home, so D's obligation to return the deposit to Seoul Guarantee Insurance or Defendant B, and the Seoul Guarantee Insurance and Defendant B perform it by requesting the performance of the obligation to return the deposit to Seoul Guarantee Insurance or Defendant B.