1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows, except where the defendant’s assertion is determined additionally, and thus, it is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant in the first instance court calculated C's active property amounting to KRW 480 million (i.e., KRW 165 million for each of the instant real property), but in the relevant auction case, the value of each of the instant real property was assessed to KRW 384,974,600, more than the above amount in the relevant auction case, as well as C's active property value exceeds KRW 676,521,300 for a third party's loan amounting to KRW 140,974,60 for a third party, and C's active property value exceeds KRW 689,974,60 for a third party's loan amounting to KRW 140,00,00 for a third party. Thus, C's assertion to the purport that at the time of the act of establishing the right to collateral security was not in insolvent.

B. The requirement for revocation of a fraudulent act means that the debtor's insolvency is not sufficient to repay, and in particular, if it is impossible to expect voluntary repayment, repayment through compulsory execution should be considered. Therefore, the important consideration is to determine whether the debtor is a small property, active property, or property that can conform to the above purpose.

In calculating the obligor's active property, it shall be excluded from the property that cannot play a role as a joint security for claims because it has no property value, unless there are other special circumstances. In particular, if the property is a claim, it shall be reasonably determined whether it can be easily repaid and shall be included in the active property only if it is affirmed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da2564 Decided February 10, 2006). Pursuant to the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 17 through 26, each of the following is 1.0%: