beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claims added by this court, shall be modified as follows:
. the defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is as follows: “The removal of 6 pages 8 of the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance (2 pages 13 through 6 pages 14) is to be used as “the removal of 6 pages 8 of the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance (2 pages 13 through 6 pages 14) to “the removal of 6 pages 12 was completed on September 27, 2017”; “Around that time” as “ July 14, 2017”; “Around that time”; and “A” as “the corresponding part of the judgment except for adding “A evidence 24” to “6 pages 13.”
2. Determination on the revocation of a lease agreement and the claim for restitution
A. Part 1 of the claim for revocation of a fraudulent act: (a) The existence of the preserved claim is required to require that the claim protected by the legal doctrine related to the creditor’s right of revocation was, in principle, incurred prior to the commission of an act that could be deemed a fraudulent act; (b) however, at the time of such fraudulent act, there is a legal relationship which already serves as the basis of the establishment of the claim; and (c) there is high probability that the claim is established based on such legal relationship in the near future; and (d) in the near future, where a claim has been created by
(B) Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the remaining designated parties except for the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties E, as well as the written evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) who is the owner of the instant land by purchasing each of the instant building, thereby constituting the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) who is the owner of the instant land’s share.
) The remaining designated persons (hereinafter referred to as “satisfors”) except for the Appointor E;
The legal relationship, which forms the basis for establishing the claim for return of unjust enrichment due to the illegal occupation of the land in this case against C, has occurred, and it is based on the near future legal relationship.