1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except adding the judgment of the court of first instance as to the defendant's argument 2. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Details to be added; and

A. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of revocation of fraudulent act in this case is unlawful, since there is no joint and several debt obligation of the plaintiff's loan in this case against C, there is no preserved claim seeking revocation of the sales contract in this case.

On the other hand, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C as the cause of the claim against Ulsan District Court 2017Gahap22144, which is the joint and several surety obligation of the loan of this case, and was sentenced to the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and the judgment became final and conclusive as seen earlier.

Therefore, the above claim against the plaintiff C is considered to be the preserved claim of the obligee's right of revocation. Therefore, the defendant's above argument is without merit.

B. On May 4, 2015, the transfer date of the instant sales contract, the Defendant asserts that C filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Plaintiff by the Ulsan District Court 2015Gahap1617, and that C had no intention of explanation since the provisional registration under the name of K was transferred under the name of the Defendant pursuant to the conciliation protocol clause of the Busan High Court 2014Na2792 dated April 13, 2015.

The intention to commit suicide is that the debtor should not harm the creditor in doing the legal act.

Here, the term "sea" does not mean any intention or intent, but it is sufficient to recognize it with simple perception.

In the end, the intention of the resolution is to recognize the fact that there is a risk that the creditor would be difficult to receive reimbursement due to the lack of joint security, and such recognition is sufficient in relation to the general creditor, and it is not necessary to recognize that it would prejudice a specific creditor.

Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102 Decided March 26, 2009