1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

The court's explanation of this case by the court of the first instance as to this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, and thus cites this case in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding the following Paragraph 2

The Defendants asserted to the effect that at the time of the conclusion of the first sale contract of this case, the registration of establishment of a collateral security on the instant real estate 1 as a collateral security company was completed, and the amount of the collateral security obligation at the time was KRW 150,525,00,00. Thus, this part should be excluded from active property to determine whether it exceeds the obligation.

In order to constitute a fraudulent act, the debtor's act of disposal of property has to be reduced in the whole property of the debtor due to such act, and the joint security of claims is insufficient (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da69026, Apr. 27, 2001). The part constituting the secured obligation of the right to preferential payment against the mortgagee is not a joint security because it has preferential right

Therefore, it is a principle calculation method to deduct the secured debt amount of the right to collateral security from active property.

However, if the amount of the secured debt of the right to collateral security is deducted from active property for the foregoing reasons, the secured debt amount should also be deducted from the secured debt amount that is not necessary to be appropriated from the joint security for the same reason.

Ultimately, since the amount of secured debt of the right to collateral security includes or excludes both positive and passive property, or does not have any influence on the result of calculation, it is not sufficient to reflect the secured debt amount in active property for convenience.

The Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted on a different premise.

The defendants of laundry facilities claim that A reflects not less than KRW 10,000 at the price of laundry facilities, but at the time of conclusion of the first sale contract of this case, A's laundry facilities are owned.