beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justifiable in light of the evidence submitted in the court of first instance to the court of first instance by examining the evidence in the evidence submitted in the court of first instance.
Therefore, this court's reasoning is as follows: "No. 1620 of 2016 was deposited as 15,00,000 won in gold No. 1620 in 2016; and No. 3, " February 3, 2013" in the first instance judgment as " February 3, 2018;" and except for the addition of "2. Additional Judgment" in this court as to the assertion added or emphasized by the defendant to this court, it is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance judgment; therefore, this court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The defendant asserts that the assignment of the claim in this case is not a biased act, and that he did not know the fact that he would harm the bankruptcy creditors at the time, and thus, we examine it.
The so-called fraudulent act that reduces the bankruptcy estate by deviating from the bankruptcy estate the general property of the debtor, which is a joint security of the total creditor, as well as the so-called fraudulent act that reduces the bankruptcy estate by deviating from the bankruptcy estate, and also includes the so-called act that interferes with equal distribution among the bankruptcy creditors by affecting the debtor’s property relationship, such as repayment to a specific creditor or provision of security (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da56637, 5644, Oct. 13, 201). In order to be recognized as an intentional person, “the debtor is aware of the harm to the bankruptcy creditor” as a subjective requirement. In particular, in the case of a biased act, the purport of the type of the act subject to rejection as prescribed by the Debtor Rehabilitation Act is eliminated.