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
Claim:
Reasons
1. The grounds for this part of the facts of recognition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of the recognition of a fraudulent act and the intent of fraud, the Plaintiff’s claim against C is subject to the obligee’s right of revocation, and the instant gift contract where C transferred the instant real estate, which is one of its sole property, to the Defendant without compensation, becomes a fraudulent act against C’s creditor, and the intention of the C’s death is presumed.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that C has concluded the gift contract of this case in the situation that C has been aware that E has jointly and severally guaranteed a loan obligation to the D Association, but C has been aware that E has been fully repaid and has been forgotten for a long time, and C has no intention of harming.
In light of the following circumstances, G limited company’s application for the commencement of compulsory auction on the instant real estate to Seoul Western District Court H, and the decision to commence compulsory auction was rendered on November 6, 2015. However, on January 12, 2016, the application for compulsory auction was withdrawn on January 13, 2016, and the transfer registration of ownership was completed on January 13, 2016, and C bears a debt of KRW 10,573,487 as of August 19, 200 in total with respect to I as of August 19, 2019. In full view of the following circumstances: (a) G limited company’s application for the commencement of compulsory auction on the instant real estate to Seoul Western District Court H; and (b) the application for compulsory auction on January 13, 2016, for which there was no evidence to acknowledge that C had no intention to perform compulsory execution by multiple general creditors including the Plaintiff.
B. The defendant's defense is proved to the effect that the defendant had different knowledge that the gift contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act.
The debtor is his sole principal.