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 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. Additional matters to be determined;

A. (1) Determination of the Defendant’s assertion on the preserved claim (1) overdue interest of KRW 15,206,270 out of the claimed preserved claim is not a claim established at the time of donation of this case, and should be excluded from the preserved claim.

(2) In principle, when a judgment creditor exercises his right of revocation, he cannot exercise his right of revocation in excess of his claim amount. In this case, the creditor's claim amount includes the interest or delay damages incurred after the fraudulent act and the time of closing argument in the fact-finding court. Meanwhile, the additional dues and increased additional dues provided for in Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act are the kind of incidental tax imposed as a interest for arrears in the unpaid portion if national taxes are not paid by the due date, and if national taxes are not paid by the due date without the due date of payment by the due date of payment by the due date, it naturally occurs pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the same Act and its amount is determined (referring to Supreme Court Decision 2006Da66753, Jun. 29, 2007). As long as the transfer income tax and value-added tax claim are recognized as the preserved claim of the creditor's right of revocation, the transfer income tax and value-added tax amount include additional dues

B. (1) Determination of the Defendant’s assertion that a fraudulent act was not committed (1) If the amount of the secured debt claimed by the Defendant exceeds the value of the secured debt, the act of disposal of the secured debt does not have the effect of reducing liability property, and thus, it does not constitute a fraudulent act.