1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the defendant’s assertion emphasized or added by the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Additional determination

A. At the time of entering into the instant transfer/acquisition agreement by the Defendant, C’s active property exceeded the negative property, and C did not become insolvent.

B. (1) Determination 1) “Fraud” subject to the obligee’s right of revocation under Article 406 of the Civil Act refers to an act that causes damage to the obligee by reducing active property or increasing the negative property, or by deepening that the obligor has already been in excess of his/her debt, and whether the obligor is in excess of his/her debt in a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act ought to be determined as at the time of the fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da254675, Oct. 26, 2017). 2) comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the entries and arguments in Items A, 1, 2, 3, and B and 1 through 6 as well as the overall purport of the arguments, active property in C around November 3, 2016, which is equivalent to the total appraised value of all business rights pertaining to the Sports Center, while the small property in the lawsuit for revocation of the fraudulent act is recognized as being totaled up to KRW 65,500,000 (30).

3 The Defendant asserts to the effect that C transferred the third floor screen golf course and indoor golf driving range of the instant sports center to G around 2015, and that this also should include C’s active property.

However, as otherwise asserted by the Defendant, as long as the screen golf course, etc. has already been transferred to a third party before the conclusion of the transfer contract of this case, it cannot be determined whether it exceeds C’s obligation including the active property.

In addition, the defendant is a member of the sports center of this case.