beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim changed in this court are all dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for an additional determination as to the assertion added or emphasized by the plaintiff in the court of first instance as set forth in the following 2.
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the issuance of the Promissory Notes in this case is in substance assigned the Defendant’s claim against the proceeds of the construction of this case to obtain repayment from the Defendant to the Defendant, and the construction amount of this case is merely KRW 2.3 billion. Since the face value of the Promissory Notes in this case is KRW 3 billion, the issuance of the Promissory Notes in this case deepens the financial condition of B, the obligor, and thus, the issuance of the Promissory Notes in this case should be revoked as it constitutes
B. In light of the following: (a) the act of issuing the Promissory Notes as seen earlier and the circumstance surrounding the assignment order of claims, etc., the act of issuing the Promissory Notes as mentioned above is merely a means of transferring the instant construction proceeds claims to the Defendant in the instant case for the purpose of repaying the existing obligations to B rather than as an independent act of assuming obligations.
Therefore, in determining whether the issuance of a promissory note in this case is a fraudulent act, it shall not be subject to the issue of the said promissory note, but rather to determine the objective assessed value of the claim for construction cost or the status or status of being awarded a contract for the construction work that was specifically incurred at the time of the issuance of the said note, and examine whether the transfer of the said claim deepens the debtor’s insolvency. As seen in Section 8 and Section 2 of the judgment of the first instance, it is difficult to deem that there was a cryptive intent since it was prior to the commencement of the construction at the time of the issuance of the instant promissory note as seen in Section 8 and Section 2.