1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the part concerning the defendant's counterclaim in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for an additional determination as to the plaintiff's argument in the appellate court under paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance

The summary is that the assignment of claims between B and the Plaintiff constitutes a fraudulent act and should be revoked, and the Plaintiff has the duty to restore it.

2. Additional determination as to the Plaintiff’s argument at the appellate court

A. The plaintiff asserts that the transfer of monetary claims to another creditor in lieu of the repayment of monetary obligations does not constitute a fraudulent act, barring special circumstances. Thus, the assignment of claims in this case does not constitute a fraudulent act.

The issue of whether an act constitutes a fraudulent act where the obligor’s act of reducing the liability property for general creditors causes or deepens the shortage of common security for general creditors should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the subject matter of the act is the proportion of the obligor’s entire responsible property in the whole responsible property; (b) the degree of insolvency; (c) the legitimacy of the economic purpose of the juristic act; (d) the reasonableness of the act in question as a means of its realization; (e) the reasonableness of the act’s duty or circumstance; and (e) the degree of the obligor’s awareness of the risk of

In a case where a debtor in excess of his/her obligation transfers claims, other than the original purpose of the obligation, with respect to the performance of the obligation, to some of the creditors, whether such act constitutes a fraudulent act can ultimately be seen as an act detrimental to the general creditor in light of the general standard of determination as seen above.