beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment as to the new argument in Defendant D’s trial, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. As to the assertion added at the trial, Defendant D asserts that the lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act against Defendant D, whose claim for revocation of a fraudulent act occurred by the Plaintiff’s subrogation on behalf of the Plaintiff on the loty system, was instituted only by the submission of an application for alteration of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as of April 3, 2013, which added the above claim as the preserved claim, after the lapse of one year from September 19, 201 to September 19, 201, on which the Plaintiff received a claim for the payment of insurance money from ice, and became aware of the existence of the fraudulent act. Thus, Defendant D asserts that the lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act against Defendant D, whose claim is the preserved claim, is unlawful after
On the other hand, the creditor's addition or exchange of the claim that he/she intends to preserve in the course of claiming revocation of the fraudulent act is merely a modification to his/her claim on the method of attack with the grounds of revocation of the fraudulent act, and it does not change the subject matter of lawsuit or the claim itself (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da13532, May 27, 2003). Thus, the judgment of the exclusion agency and the issue should be made at the time of the lawsuit of this case, not at the time when the above claim was added as the preserved claim, but at the time of the lawsuit of this case. The judgment of the exclusion agency and the issue should be made at the time of the above defendant's argument that the plaintiff knew that the contract of the first class mortgage of this case and the sales contract of this case constitute a fraudulent act around September 19, 2011.
8. The same shall also apply from September 1.
On July 5, 2012, where one year has not elapsed, the fact that the instant lawsuit was brought is recorded.