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
1...
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following determination as to the new argument in the defendant's trial at the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, the reasoning of the judgment at the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The defendant asserts to the effect that the market price of the instant real estate at the time of the fraudulent act does not amount to KRW 473,600,000 (296,000,000,000 as the secured debt amount of the Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., the secured debt amount of which was 296,00,000,000) as the secured debt amount of the secured debt of the instant real estate at the time of the fraudulent act.
However, in a case where a real estate on which a mortgage is established is transferred by a fraudulent act, the fraudulent act is established within the extent of the value of the real estate, that is, within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the secured debt amount of the mortgage from the market value (not consistent with the publicly notified land value). If the secured debt amount exceeds the value of the real estate, the transfer of the real estate in question may not be deemed a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da42618, Oct. 9, 201). According to the evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence No. 14, Sep. 6, 2013, the appraised value of subparagraph 102 of the same Article as at the time of February 14, 2014 is 550,000,000 won and the market value of the real estate in this case is 50,000,000 won at the time of the above recognition.
Therefore, the fraudulent act of this case is established within the scope of KRW 76,400,000, which is the balance obtained by deducting the total amount of the secured debt of the right to collateral security from KRW 550,000,000, which is the value of the real estate of this case. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff .