beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2.(a)
On June 9, 2015, the claims indicated in the separate sheet between the defendant and C are related to the claims indicated in the separate sheet.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition of the preserved claim, the plaintiffs have a claim for the price of goods against each of C, and the plaintiffs are the preserved claim seeking the revocation of fraudulent act.
B. The obligor C was liable to the Plaintiffs at the time of the instant assignment contract, while there was no particular property other than the instant claim. However, the transfer of the instant claim to the Defendant by C, which was in excess of the obligation, to the Defendant, would be a fraudulent act that would reduce the liability assets for the general creditors, including the Plaintiffs.
C. 1) The defendant's assertion as to the defendant's bona fide defense 1) The defendant had a claim for the price of goods, including the price for supplying freezing ginseng related to the claim of this case, at the time of the transfer of the claim of this case, and the defendant merely received the claim of this case for payment, and the obligor did not know the circumstances detrimental to the obligee. 2) Article 406 (1) of the Civil Act of the relevant legal principle provides that "When the obligor performs a juristic act for the purpose of property right with the knowledge that it harms the obligee, the obligee may claim the revocation and restitution to the court. However, the same shall not apply where the person who received the benefit from the act or the person who acquired it was unaware that it would prejudice the obligee at the time of the act
In a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act, the creditor who asserts the revocation of the debtor's bad faith has the burden of proving that the beneficiary is bad faith, not the creditor, but the beneficiary bears the burden of proving that the beneficiary is good faith, and the debtor's act of disposal of property constitutes fraudulent act.