The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 250 million as the Plaintiff’s loan to Defendant B, on May 31, 2007 and July 3, 2007, respectively, transferred from the account under the name of J to the account under the name of J Co., Ltd. with Defendant B as the remitter.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of a monetary loan agreement by account transfer in the name of the borrower, or by recognizing facts contrary to logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and concluded a contract title trust agreement with Defendant B with respect to the 1/2 share of V Apartment 25 and 705, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and concluded with Defendant B on the ground that the seller of the above apartment was aware of the fact that the title trust agreement existed, and thus, the ownership of the above apartment was reverted to U.S., but the Defendant B held that the right to return unjust enrichment of KRW 238,00,000,000, which was provided as the purchase fund

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles as to the computation of active property in order to determine the debtor's insolvency in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act.

In addition, the above judgment of the court below contains a determination rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that the sum of the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security established on the above apartment should be included in the small-sized property, and thus, it is ancillary to the plaintiff.