A. The division of property between the Defendant and the Intervenor’s Intervenor is revoked within the limit of KRW 2,100,000,000, which was concluded on December 6, 2013 with respect to real estate recorded in the separate sheet.

B. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,100,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day after the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

2. The part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant out of the total litigation cost is assessed against the Defendant, and the part arising from the intervention is assessed against the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

The text of paragraph (1) is as follows.

2. The purport of the appeal by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

A. Status of the parties

(1) The Plaintiff (the former trade name is 'Mos Savings Bank'. The former name is 'Mos Savings Bank'. In the case of a corporation for convenience from the next day, the portion of 'stock company' among its corporate name' is not stated) and SBB Savings Bank (the former trade name is 'SBI' through 'SBI'. From the next day, '2 Bank' through 'SBS Savings Bank'. From the next day, 'the former trade name' is 'YS3 Savings Bank'. 'the former trade name' is 'the third bank'. The former trade name is 'YS4 Savings Bank'. 'the former name' is 'SSSSS4 Savings Bank'. The former name' is 'the former name'. The former name' is 'SBS4 Savings Bank' from 'the second to 'SBI' to 'the Plaintiff Bank') and the Plaintiff was merged on 2014 to 217.

(2) From January 199 to January 2013, the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) served as the president of the Hyundai Swiss Savings Bank Group Group with the Plaintiff Bank’s principal axis, and controlled the Plaintiff’s second to fourth banks through (i) around 1) around March 2013. The Intervenor sold the management right of the Hyundai Swiss Savings Bank Group to SBI Korea Holdings around March 2013.

(3) On February 25, 1981, the Defendant reported marriage to the Intervenor.

B. Payment of attorney fees by the Plaintiff Bank

(1) On September 19, 201 and April 30, 2012, the Financial Supervisory Service accused and notified the Plaintiff’s executives and employees, including the Intervenor, to the prosecution on charges of “violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act due to the extension of credit to a major shareholder, etc.”

(2) On September 25, 2012, the Intervenor had the Plaintiff Bank enter into a delegation agreement on the case of accusation and notification as stipulated in paragraph (1) in the name of each party’s own name in preparation for the prosecution investigation. Accordingly, on September 26, 2012 and October 9, 2012, the Plaintiff Bank paid the retainers, including value-added tax, to the law firm as follows.

Plaintiff 1, 715,00,000 715,000,000 715,000,000,000 2 of the instant 2 Bank No. 501,000,000 143,000,000 3 of the instant 3 Bank No. 143,500,000 143,000,000 4 Bank No. 4 of the instant 4 Bank No. 71,50,000 72,000,000,000 1,430,000,000,000 1,430,000

C. The Intervenor’s disposal of the instant real estate

(1) Establishment of a collateral security

(A) On August 21, 2012, Stim Mutual Savings Bank loaned KRW 3,500,000,000 to Ediditable Mutual Savings Bank. On August 21, 2012, the Intervenor completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage with respect to the instant real estate as “ Asian Trust,” and ② the maximum amount of debt (350,00,000,000,000, the debtor’s obligor, and the mortgagee’s mortgagee’s mortgage as “St Savings Bank,” respectively, in order to secure the above loans to Ediditable Mutual Savings Bank.

(B) On April 29, 2013, the Intervenor took out loans of KRW 2,800,000,000 from the Hansung Insurance Co., Ltd., respectively, and repaid all the obligations for loans of KRW 800,000,000,000 from the Inditable Savings Bank to the Inditable Mutual Savings Bank. Accordingly, on April 29, 2013, the Intervenor completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Intervenor’s future on the ground of the attribution of trust property as to the instant real estate, on the ground of the reversion of trust property, on April 29, 2013.

(C) On April 29, 2013, in order to secure the Intervenor’s obligations for each of the loans set forth in the above Paragraph (b) against the Hansung Savings Bank, the Intervenor completed the registration of creation of a mortgage with respect to the instant real estate as “1,20,000,000 won”, “the Intervenor”, “the Intervenor,” “the mortgagee,” “the mortgagee,” “the amount of maximum debt”, “1,200,000,000 won”, “the Intervenor,” “the Intervenor,” and “the amount of maximum debt”, “the amount of debt”, “960,000,000 won”, “the obligor,” “the mortgagee,” and “the amount of maximum debt amount of debt amount”, “the Intervenor,” and “the Intervenor,” “the Intervenor, etc.,” respectively.

(D) Upon the cooperation of the defendant, the intervenor completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on the instant real estate in the first instance trial with the co-defendant 3 (Defendant's Cho Jae-ok), the non-party 4 (Defendant's fault), the non-party 5 (Defendant's fault), and the non-party 6 (Defendant's share 4) as a collateral. The detailed details are as follows.

The actual claim amount of KRW 600,000,000, which was included in the main sentence of this Article on May 7, 2013, 2013, shall be the maximum debt amount of KRW 400,000,000,000, which was the date of the registration of establishment of a mortgage on April 10, 2013, which was the date of borrowing the loan from Nonparty 3: The Intervenor: the actual claim amount of KRW 150,000,000 on May 14, 2013: The Intervenor’s actual claim amount of KRW 50,000: Nonparty 5: the actual claim amount of KRW 10,00,000,000 on May 7, 2013: the actual claim amount of KRW 150,000,000,000 on May 14, 2013; the Intervenor’s actual claim amount of KRW 150,000,00.

(2) Division of property

(A) From the second half of 2013, SBI Korea Holdings, which has taken over the management rights of the Hyundai SBS Savings Bank Group Group Group Organizations, urged the intervenors to discharge joint and several liability obligations (which is a joint and several liability obligation for a loan of KRW 38,00,000,000 to the SBI Korea Holdings in the front and rear examination). Furthermore, the Intervenor was bound by the facts of the offense, such as the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, etc. (Misappropriation in trust) on October 25, 2013, the Intervenor was investigated by the prosecution on the case of accusation and notification of the Financial Supervisory Service.

(B) On November 22, 2013, the Defendant and the Intervenor filed an application for divorce with the Seoul Family Court No. 2013No. 5440, and immediately thereafter, on December 6, 2012, the Defendant and the Intervenor agreed on the division of property (hereinafter “instant division of property”).

(1) The parties to the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 are divorced on 0.1: 00 to 0. 1: 00 to 00 to 100 to 20. 10 to 200 to 200 to 1,00 to 20 to 200 to 30 to 10 to 30 to 20 to 1,00 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 30 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 30 to 1,00 to 20 to 20 to 1,00 to 20 to 20 to 30 to 1,00 to 20 to 20 to 30 to 1,00 to 20 to 20 to 4,00 to 20 to 20 to 30 to 30 to 30 to 20 to 20 to 2 to 3.

D. Change in rights to the real estate of this case after the division of property of this case

(1) On December 9, 2013, the Defendant filed an application for provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of the instant real estate with the Seoul Family Court 2013 business group 1978, in order to preserve the Intervenor’s right to claim registration of transfer of ownership following the instant property division agreement. On December 13, 2013, the said court accepted the Defendant’s application and rendered a provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of the instant real estate, and on the same day, the registration of the provisional disposition was completed. On February 5, 2014, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Defendant on the ground of the instant property division agreement, and the registration of the provisional disposition entry was revoked on February 20, 2014.

(2) On March 24, 2014, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with Nonparty 7 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with respect to the instant real estate, and on April 21, 2014, the ownership transfer registration was completed on April 21, 201 for the instant real estate.

(A) The purchase price shall be KRW 5,700,000; Nonparty 7 shall pay the Defendant the down payment of KRW 570,000,000 on the date of the contract, and KRW 5,130,000,000 on April 21, 2014, respectively.

(B) The key money shall be treated as an intermediate payment.

(C) The Defendant shall: (a) redeem the remainder on April 21, 2014, out of the claim 1,000,000,000 won, the total amount of KRW 780,000,000,000, as the claim No. 2, and redeem the remainder on April 22, 2014; and (b) redeem the total amount of KRW 600,000,000 by the maximum debt amount of Nonparty 3 up to April 22, 20. If the Defendant fails to do so, the deposit shall be subtracted by the remainder of the debt amount.

(D) If the former tenant is not detained by the payment date of the balance, the terms and conditions of the loan succession and the terms and conditions of the balance will be as follows:

1) The Defendant’s repayment of the right to collateral security by Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4, Nonparty 5, and Nonparty 6 shall be cancelled within seven days from the date of the contract.

2) The Korea Exchange shall succeed to the principal amount of KRW 1,800,000,000 out of the loans of the Korea Exchange Insurance Co., Ltd., and the remainder shall be refunded by the Defendant on the balance date.

3) The Defendant bears the interest on KRW 800,000,000 from April 21, 2014 to May 31, 2014 as interest on KRW 1,80,000,00,00 on the loans of the Korean Commercial and Non-Party 7, and the interest on KRW 1,000,000,00,00 respectively, and the Defendant succeeds to the condition that Nonparty 7 bears the interest on the loans from June 1, 2014.

4) The Defendant shall substitute the remainder of KRW 2,000,000 as security deposit and temporarily reside in the remainder before attracting the former lessee.

(3) After the conclusion of the instant sales contract, part of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring property that had been completed prior to the instant division of property was cancelled as follows.

The actual maximum debt amount on April 14, 2014, which was cancelled on the date of cancellation registration of the Table included in the main text, shall be 150,000,000 won, the actual maximum debt amount on the registration of the establishment of a mortgage, which was composed of “150,000,000 won,” “the debtor,” “the debtor,” “the participant,” and “the participant,” and “the participant,” and “the participant,” and “the mortgagee,” on April 21, 2014, the actual maximum debt amount on the registration of the establishment of a mortgage, which was composed of “1,040,00,000 won,” “the debtor,” “the intervenor,” “the intervenor,” “the mortgagee,” and “the intervenor,” “the Nonparty,” “the Nonparty,” “the Intervenor,” “the Nonparty,” and “the Intervenor,” “the Intervenor, 100,000,00 won,” and “the Intervenor, 2000,00.

(4) On April 21, 2014, the remainder payment date of Non-party 7 prevented Non-party 11 and Non-party 12 from seeking a full tenant of the instant real estate by April 21, 2014, which led to Non-party 11 and Non-party 12 to have the Intervenor acquire 1,80,000,000 won out of the Intervenor’s obligations for the loan against the limited liability insurance, as stipulated in the instant sales contract. Accordingly, on April 22, 2014, Non-party 11 exempted the Intervenor from the obligation to complete the registration of creation of a mortgage regarding the instant real estate as “1,20,000,000,000,000 won,” the Intervenor’s “mortgage,” and the “mortgage,” respectively.

E. Progress of the relevant lawsuit

(1) A criminal case against the intervenor

(A) On November 12, 2013, the prosecutor filed a public prosecution against the Intervenor on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), etc. (Seoul Central District Court 2013Dahap1212, hereinafter “relevant criminal case”). The above court found the Intervenor guilty of part of the facts charged on May 9, 2014, and sentenced the Intervenor to a four-year punishment.

(B) On November 7, 2014, the Intervenor and the Prosecutor appealed against the first instance judgment of the relevant criminal case, and filed an appeal under this Court No. 2014No1465. The appellate court partially accepted the Intervenor’s appeal and reversed the first instance judgment and sentenced the Intervenor to a punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for four years. The Intervenor filed an appeal under Supreme Court Decision 2014Do16165, Mar. 26, 2015.

(C) Of the intervenor's criminal facts found guilty through the final judgment of the relevant criminal case, the part relating to the Plaintiff bank is as follows:

1. Violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act due to credit extension to large shareholders, etc.

On October 2, 2008, from October 2 to July 28, 2010, 2008, to the Intervenor who is a major shareholder, Plaintiff 7,490,000,000 banks No. 2250,00,000 on December 12, 2009 to the non-party 15 of this case, 8,50,000,000 Bank No. 20,000, 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000

Note 7) Loans

2) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to poor loans

(1) On May 24, 2010 to August 31, 2011, Plaintiff 9,000,000,000 bank No. 22,30,000,000 of the instant loan No. 3 bank No. 12,000,000,000 of the instant loan No. 4 bank No. 8,00,000,000 of the instant loan No. 40,00,000 on June 30, 200; Plaintiff 60,000,000 bank No. 40,000,000,000 on June 30, 2010; Plaintiff 7,000,000,000,0000 or 7,000,000,0000 or 7,000,000,000 or 7,0000 or 7,000,000.

(2) Civil cases against the intervenor

(A) Payment of attorney fees

1) On February 27, 2014, the Plaintiff Bank filed a lawsuit against the previous president of the Intervenor and the Plaintiff Bank seeking payment of damages equivalent to the amount calculated by adding damages for delay after the payment date to the attorney’s fees paid by the Plaintiff Bank to the legal representative of the law firm and deducting the money returned from the legal firm’s sex (hereinafter “relevant 1 civil case”).

2) On March 19, 2015, the said court rendered a ruling that “the intervenor shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,425,056,847 and KRW 1,280,00,00 among them, 5% per annum from October 25, 2014 to December 11, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” Accordingly, the intervenor filed an appeal under this Court No. 2015Na2015, but the appeal was dismissed on November 20, 2015, and the said appellate judgment became final and conclusive on December 15, 2012.

(B) Regarding defective loans, etc.

1) On April 29, 2014, the Plaintiff bank filed a lawsuit against the Intervenor and the former president of the Plaintiff bank seeking payment of KRW 1,410,00,000 for part of the Plaintiff bank’s damages incurred due to the Intervenor’s illegal acts, as set forth in Seoul Central District Court 2014Gahap52945, and the Plaintiff bank filed a lawsuit claiming payment of the Plaintiff bank’s losses (the Plaintiff bank did not include the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 10,000,000 for the Plaintiff bank’s corporate bonds acceptance amount on the ground that the Plaintiff bank received full repayment of KRW 10,000,000 for the Intervenor’s corporate bonds acceptance amount due to the Plaintiff’s corporate bonds acquisition issued by Hydi Investment. From the next day, the Plaintiff bank did not include the Intervenor’s tort in the cause of the claim.

(1) On October 2, 2008, 200-10-28, 100-10, 100-14, 10-10-6, 00-6, 00-6, 0-10-6, 00-6, 00-6, 00-6, 0-10-6, 0-10-6, 00-6, 00-6, 00-6, 0-6, 0-6, 00-6, 0-6, 0-6, 0-6, 0-6, 0-1, 0-6, 0-6, 00-6, 0-6, 0-1, 0-6, 00-6, 00-6, 00-6, 00-1,000-6,00-6,00-6,00-6,00-6,00

2) On April 16, 2015, the aforementioned court dismissed the part on the claim for damages of KRW 50,000,000, which was found not guilty of the Intervenor’s judgment in a final judgment on related criminal cases, based on ① “the part on the claim for damages of KRW 50,000,00 as the cause of the Intervenor’s tort of “violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act due to the provision of property benefits to the Intervenor’s lineal ascendants,” but ② the part on the claim for damages of which the remainder of tort was found guilty as the cause of the claim in the final judgment in the relevant criminal case, on the ground that “the amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiff bank is deemed to exceed the claim amount of the Plaintiff bank corresponding to the extremely part of the amount of damages recognized in the relevant criminal case, at least the amount of damages sustained by the Plaintiff bank, at least KRW 1,360,000,000 and 201,000 annually from January 8, 2015 to April 16, 2015.”

(f) The intervenor's property status;

(1) The status of the property and its collateral held by the Intervenor at the time of the instant property division consultation is as follows.

(1) The actual tax amount of 100 40 m20 m240 m20 m20 m25 m20 m20 m28 m20 m26 m20 m28 m20 m25 m20 m28 m20 m27 m26 m28 m20 m28 m27 m27 m20 m27 m28 m20 m27 m20 m26 m20 m27 m20 m27 m20 m27 m20 m26 m20 m27 m20 m27 m20 m27 m20 m28 m20 m20 m27 m20 m20 m20 m20

Note 10) Value (cost)

11) Building

Note 12) 2,197,579,960

13) Mortgage

Note 14) 0

Note 15) 0

Note 16) 1,594,854,812

17) Franch Commercial Bank

Note 18) 1,884,83,695

Note 19) 2,425,642,471

Note 20) 480,000

(2) On the other hand, the status of the obligation borne by the Intervenor based on the principal at the time of the instant division of property is as follows.

The actual substance of Non-Party 1’s debt loan agreement of 00 SBS 38,00,000 on September 16, 201, which is included in the main text, is 00,000 won, 00, 000, 000, 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,00,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,000,00,000,00,00.

Note 21) 7,828,571,101

(3) The Intervenor used KRW 750,000,000, out of KRW 800,000,000 borrowed from Nonparty 1, to repay the loan obligation to HD Investment, and used KRW 50,000,000 remaining as living expenses, etc.; ② Nonparty 2 used the full amount of KRW 500,000,000,000 borrowed from LDD Investment in repayment of the loan obligation to LDD Investment; and also, LDI used the full amount of KRW 1,250,00,000 (=750,000,0000 + 50,000,000,000) paid to the financial institution.

G. Divorce report and the current status of the defendant's property

(1) On January 16, 2014, the Defendant and the Intervenor reported divorce on the same day with the Seoul Family Court No. 2013No. 5440 decided January 16, 2014.

(2) The property held by the Defendant under his name at the time the divorce was declared is as follows:

The actual substance of the real estate (resident 7 omitted) 1,225,00,000 (No. 22) shares 1,275,276 shares (No. 23) of △△△△ Dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul (No. 7 omitted) △△△△△△△△, Seoul (No. 130.259§³) 1,225,000 shares (No. 23). The actual substance of the deposit claim of 189,523 shares issued in the account opened in the △△△△△△ Bank 189,523 accounts opened in the △△△△ Bank, 64,877,6444 accounts opened in the bank of △△△△△△△, 11,142 actual substance of the account 2,172,698 accounts opened in the △△△ Bank.

Note 22) 130.259 square meters

Note 23) 1,225,000,00

Note 24) Flusium

Note 25) 96,000,000

(3) 한편, 피고는 2013. 12. 27. 소외 20과 이 사건 ▷▷동 아파트에 관하여 임대차보증금을 750,000,000원으로 한 임대차계약을 체결하여 소외 20에 대하여 750,000,000원의 임대차보증금반환의무를 부담하게 되었다.

[Based on recognition] Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 7, 9, 10, 12, 14 through 17, 20 through 24, 26, 28 through 33, and 42 of the record (including the number of documentary evidence with several numbers), Eul-1 through 3, 7, 8, 10, 18, 26, 27, 36 through 41 of the record, and each fact-finding reply to the court of the first instance and the Sejong Mutual Savings Bank; the result of the fact-finding reply to the court of the first instance to the △△ Bank, the △△ Bank of the court of the first instance, the △△ Bank of the Seoul Metropolitan City, the results of the response to each order to submit financial information to △△△ Bank, the results of the response to this court's submission of financial information and the purport of all arguments in this court as to the order to submit all financial information.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Intervenor, with the intent to conceal the Intervenor’s property in excess of his/her debt, made a division of property in this case’s case’s agreement on division of property, which was substantially worth worth KRW 2,100,000,000, based on divorce with the Defendant, with the intent to conceal the Intervenor’s property. Even if the Defendant and the Intervenor did not have the most divorced, the agreement on division of property in this case’s case’s agreement on division of property is a juristic act with the Intervenor’s lack of joint security for

Therefore, the agreement on division of the property of this case regarding the instant real estate concluded between the Defendant and the Intervenor shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 2,100,000,000. The Defendant, the beneficiary, shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,100,000,000 as the return of the value and delay damages.

B. As to the existence of the preserved claim

(1) According to the facts acknowledged in paragraph (1), prior to the consultation on division of property of this case with the defendant, the intervenor has already committed a tort against the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act due to credit extension to the major shareholder, (B) insolvent loans, and (B) the payment of individual attorney fees. ② In the first instance court of the first civil case related to the first civil case, the intervenor paid the amount equivalent to KRW 1,425,056,847 as damages for the illegal act of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) due to the payment of individual attorney fees to the intervenor on March 19, 2015, and the amount equivalent to KRW 1,280,000 as damages for the illegal act of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) as damages for delay, and the judgment on April 16, 2015 as damages for the illegal act of the majority shareholder on April 16, 2015.

Therefore, in the case of a damage claim against the intervenor alleged by the plaintiff as the preserved claim in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act, although the judgment of the court of first and second civil cases related to the determination of the existence or scope of the damage claim was rendered and finalized after the agreement on division of property in this case, the damage claim itself had already arisen at the time of the agreement on division of property in this case [the damage claim acknowledged through the final judgment of each civil case in the relevant first and second civil cases is KRW 2,640,00,000 (=the principal amount is + KRW 1,280,000 + KRW 1,360,000 + KRW 1,360,000]. Accordingly, the lawsuit for revocation of the fraudulent act in this case exceeds KRW 2,100,000,000, which the plaintiff seeks to return to the defendant as the restitution following the revocation of the fraudulent act]

(2) As to this, the Defendant and the Intervenor asserted to the effect that the damage claim asserted by the Plaintiff was actually repaid, inasmuch as the damage incurred by the Intervenor’s breach of trust was resolved by acquiring SBI Korea Holdings’s Savings Bank by offering new shares, and thus, the damage claim asserted by the Plaintiff was actually repaid.

However, just because SBI Korea Holdings acquired the Hyundai SBI Korea Savings Bank and offered capital increase, it cannot be deemed that the Intervenor subrogated to the Intervenor’s liability for damages against the Plaintiff. There is no assertion or proof as to the circumstance that the Intervenor’s liability for damages against the Plaintiff was extinguished. Accordingly, this part of the allegation by the Defendant and the Intervenor is without merit.

C. As to whether the act constitutes a fraudulent act

(1) As to whether it constitutes a false division of property following the divorce

(A) In a case where a divorce has been established by agreement between the parties intending to resolve the legal marital relationship, even if there are other purposes in the divorce, the parties cannot be deemed to have no intention to divorce, and special circumstances should be recognized that anyone would be able to obtain the best divorce (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Du58901, Sept. 12, 2017). Furthermore, the burden of proving that the divorce falls under the best divorce.

(B) According to the facts acknowledged by paragraph (1), the Defendant and the Intervenor filed an application for divorce with the Seoul Family Court on October 25, 2013, after being detained by the Intervenor on November 22, 2013, and the division of the property of this case on December 6, 12. In addition, according to the results of the inquiry into the Seoul Family Court’s reply and the entire purport of the pleadings with respect to the Seoul Family Court, the Defendant continued to interview with the Intervenor detained in the Seoul Family Court on January 16, 2014, and submitted an application for interview with the Intervenor on the relation with the Intervenor at the time of the interview.

(C) However, according to the facts acknowledged by Paragraph (1) on the other hand, the defendant is expected to have more economic difficulties due to the intervenor's sudden detention and SBI Korea Holdings' joint and several liability (limited to principal 38,00,000,000 won)'s demand for performance, etc., and thus, the defendant seems to have reached a divorce with the intervenor. In addition, the defendant and the intervenor have maintained a normal matrimonial relationship for about 33 years, and the main reason for causing the failure of the two persons' marital relationship has been in economic difficulties, and it is difficult to view it as an exceptional case with the defendant's meeting with the intervenor by disclosing the relationship with the intervenor as " wife" even after the defendant filed a divorce report. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that the agreement between the defendant and the intervenor falls under the largest divorce, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part of this part of this case without any reason is without merit.

(2) As to whether a fraudulent act constitutes division of property

(A) As to the intervenor's insolvency

According to the facts found in Paragraph (1), at least 74,768,571,101 won (the sum of principal of a debt to a mortgagee and a general creditor) at the time of the agreement on division of property of this case. Meanwhile, at the time of the agreement on division of property of this case, the intervenor held property other than the real estate of this case, but most of the real estate was offered as security to creditors, such as SBI Korea Holdings, and the value of the real estate or shares not offered as security is not much significant. In addition, in the case of loans to the Intervenor, it is evident that the Intervenor was liable at the time of the agreement on division of property of this case as of August 13, 2015 by adding up the principal and the debt amount remaining as of August 13, 2015 with the maturity of the loan to the Intervenor, and it is evident that the Intervenor was liable at the time of the agreement on division of property of this case as of February 13, 2016.

(B) As to whether it is reasonable as division of property

1) Relevant legal principles

A) Division of property following divorce is a system that has the characteristics of support to the other party, which is the liquidation of common property formed through mutual cooperation during marriage. In light of these circumstances, even though a debtor, who has already been in excess of his/her debt, transferred a certain property to his/her spouse, thereby reducing joint security against general creditors, the division of property does not have to be revoked as a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances to deem that the division of property is excessive beyond a considerable degree pursuant to the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da63516, Feb. 9, 2001; 200Da63516, Feb. 9, 200). However, the burden of proving that there are special circumstances to deem that the division of property is excessive beyond a considerable degree, should be compared with the creditor’s interest in division (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da14101, Jul. 28, 200). 209.

B) The actual common property of the husband and wife created through mutual cooperation during marriage is the subject of division of property, regardless of who is responsible for the management thereof, including not only real estate, cash, deposit assets, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 96Meu1397, Jun. 11, 1999, etc.). In addition, in a case where a wife contributed to the maintenance or increase of the husband’s property by making mutual aid by taking full charge of, or sharing the family labor, etc., and contributed to the maintenance or increase of the husband’s property, the property achieved through mutual cooperation also becomes the subject of division of property (see Supreme Court Order 93S6, May 11, 1993, etc.).

On the other hand, the current marital property system is based on the separation between husband and wife system, and in principle, each husband and wife’s obligation is borne by each other. Thus, in cases where a husband and wife divorce, the obligation borne by one spouse to a third party during marriage is not, in principle, subject to liquidation as an individual’s obligation, except for ordinary family affairs. However, in cases where the obligation is borne by one spouse due to the formation and maintenance of common property, and even if specific property acquired due to the obligation remains, if the obligation bearing the obligation is deemed to be for common interests of both husband and wife, it shall be subject to liquidation as it is connected to the formation and maintenance of common property during marriage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74900, supra). In particular, it shall be deemed that the obligation which the other party has accepted due to a business transaction carried on as the main source during the normal marital life before the failure, which is ultimately accompanied by the formation of common property (see Supreme Court Decision 200Meu164, Aug. 19, 2005).

C) The property subject to division in the division of property following the divorce shall be determined on the basis of the date on which the divorce agreement is concluded, i.e., the date on which the divorce agreement is declared (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Meu230, Mar. 14, 2003). Therefore, even where one of the married couple bears a new obligation after the date on which the divorce agreement is concluded or one of the married couple’s obligations are repaid, such changes in property should not be considered in determining the property subject to division (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74900, supra).

(ii) the determination of property to be divided;

(A)affirmative property;

① According to the facts and evidence found in Paragraph 1, the Defendant and the Intervenor had been living in the course of marriage with the Plaintiff’s bank during the marriage with the Intervenor as its main revenue source. The Defendant held 35,276 shares issued by Edar Investment, which was operated by the Intervenor, and exercised the rights as a shareholder, and further contributed to the formation, maintenance, or increase of property during the marriage period by allowing the Intervenor to use his/her own deposit account in his/her name as its business fund.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the active property acquired by the defendant and the intervenor during the marriage period under paragraph (1) is the joint property achieved by mutual cooperation, and is subject to division of property.

(2) On the premise of such judgment, if positive property between the defendant and the intervenor subject to division of property is organized, it shall be as follows:

The active property under the name of the defendant

본문내 포함된 표 구분 내역 가액(원) 부동산 ● 이 사건 ▷▷동 아파트 1,225,000,000 주식 ● 하이디인베스트먼트 발행 주식 35,276주 불상 예금채권 ● ◇◇은행에 개설된 계좌 189,523 ● ☆☆은행에 개설된 계좌 64,877,644 ● ▽▽은행에 개설된 계좌 2,111,142 ● ◎◎은행에 개설된 계좌 172,698 ● ◁◁◁증권에 개설된 계좌 96,000,000 합계 최소 1,388,351,007

(B) active property in the name of the intervenor

The actual tax rate of 5,70,00,00 of the real estate of this case, which is included in the main text of 26 shall be 2,70,00,000 of the real estate of this case and 1/2 shares of 1/2,197,579,960 of the real estate of this case, and 38,721,500 shares of 2,622,834 shares issued by the Plaintiff, 742,90 shares issued by the 42 bank of this case, 1,347, 150 shares issued by the 42 bank of this case, 1,485 shares issued by 1,83,864, 854, 812 shares issued by PPCB of this case, 1,484, 8365 shares issued by 1,460, 401 shares issued by the police shares of this case, 205, 207, 401 share shares issued by the 506 shares of this case.

Note 26) Value (cost)

Note 27) Real property

B) Petty property

(1) The following circumstances are revealed according to the facts and false evidence admitted under paragraph (1):

On September 16, 201, an intervenor jointly and severally guaranteed a loan obligation of KRW 38,00,000,000 from SBI Korea Holdings on September 16, 201. On April 29, 201, the intervenor borrowed KRW 3,60,000,000 in total from the Korea Exchange Holdings in order to pay the loan obligation to SBI Korea Mutual Savings Bank.

(C) In order to raise the operating fund of the Har Investment and to use it for part of the cost of living, the instant intervenor borrowed the sum of KRW 2,00,000,000 from Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4, Nonparty 5, and Nonparty 6 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Nonindicted 1, etc.”), and in particular, the Defendant participated in the lending of money from Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4, Nonparty 5, and Nonparty 6.

A person who is injured by a disaster, borrowed KRW 19,123,684,80 from Den Investment on December 15, 201, and the defendant raised an objection or raised an issue as a shareholder.

Chn Investment holds 9.18% of the total issued shares by the Defendant and its children, and the Intervenor has been practically operating. The Defendant, as a shareholder, received dividends of KRW 1,683,082,707 out of the earned surplus of Dhnn Investment in the second half of 2006.

② 앞서 본 사정들을 고려할 때, 비록 위 ①의 ㉮∼㉰항의 거래로 발생한 채무의 경우 일상가사에 관한 채무라고 단정하기는 어렵지만, 참가인이 피고와의 공동재산을 형성·유지하는 데 수반하여 부담한 채무이거나 피고가 용인하였던 채무에 해당하여 재산분할의 대상에 포함된다고 봄이 옳다(참가인이 SBI코리아홀딩스에 대하여 부담하는 38,000,000,000원의 연대보증채무의 경우 2013년 하반기에 이르러 SBI코리아홀딩스 측에서 그 이행을 독촉하였을 뿐 아니라 피고 스스로 2016. 9. 28.자 준비서면을 통하여 ‘2013년 11월 당시 하이디인베스트먼트는 사실상 껍데기뿐인 회사로서 지분 가치가 없었다.’고 주장하고 있는 점을 감안할 때, 이혼신고가 이루어진 2014. 1. 16. 당시 참가인은 위 연대보증채무를 이행할 수밖에 없었던 반면 하이디인베스트먼트에 대한 구상의 가능성은 희박하였다고 보인다. 따라서 참가인이 SBI코리아홀딩스에 대하여 부담하는 38,000,000,000원의 연대보증채무도 소극재산에 포함시킨다).

나아가 제1항에서 인정한 사실에 의하면, 앞서 피고와 참가인 사이에 재산분할의 대상이 된다고 인정한 적극재산 중 ㉮ 이 사건 ○○동 부지와 그 지상 건물 및 ㉯ 이 사건 ▷▷동 아파트는 각각 임대차보증금을 1,100,000,000원과 750,000,000원으로 정하여 제3자에게 임대되었음을 알 수 있다. 따라서 특별한 사정이 없는 한, 혼인생활 중 쌍방의 협력으로 취득한 위 각 부동산에 관한 위 각 임대차보증금반환채무 역시 재산분할의 대상에 포함된다.

③ Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s damage liability owed to the Plaintiff according to the facts found guilty in the final judgment of the relevant criminal case should also be included in the property division between the Defendant and the Intervenor. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be readily concluded as the obligation arising from the formation and maintenance of the joint property of the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part

④ On the premise of such judgment, the following are arranged to arrange the small property subject to division of property between the Defendant and the Intervenor.

Sheed property in the name of the defendant

● 소외 20에 대한 이 사건 ▷▷동 아파트의 임대차보증금반환채무 : 750,000,000원

(B) Small property in the name of the intervenor

Non-Party 1,100,000,000 as the principal and interest of the voting creditor’s creditor’s debt(s) contained in the main text, and as the aggregate of the loans 52,528,571,100,000,000,000,000 and the loans 8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00

3) The result of division of property following the agreement on division of property in the instant case

According to the facts found in Paragraph (1), the division of property in this case is acknowledged as follows: ① the Intervenor transferred the instant real property to the Defendant as division of property following divorce (the remaining property in the name of the Intervenor belongs to the Intervenor); ② the Defendant is an agreement with the effect that the Defendant takes over the actual secured debt of the right to collateral security already established regarding the instant real property. Meanwhile, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant, at the time of the consultation on division of property, took over the real secured debt of the right to collateral security

Ultimately, as a result of the division of property of this case, the Defendant gains profits from the acquisition of the instant real property under the previous name, which is subject to the restriction on the security right without any change, while the Intervenor lost the ownership of the instant real property, thereby reducing the total assets in its name (it does not change the conclusion that considering the secured debt of the instant real estate and the market price of the instant real estate and the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the instant real estate, the total assets in the Defendant’s name will increase and decrease the total assets in the Intervenor’s name).

4) Determination on the reasonableness of division of property

A) In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the facts and evidence revealed earlier, the agreement on division of property in the instant case ought to be deemed to have lost its reasonableness.

① Comparing the value of positive and negative properties between the Defendant and the Intervenor as the subject of division of property, the amount of the principal of the debt is KRW 53,278,571,101 (=negative 750,00,000 under the Defendant’s name + 52,528,571,101), while the amount of positive property exceeds 15,709,980,445 won (i.e., active property under the Defendant’s name + KRW 1,388,351,07 + positive property under the Intervenor’s name + KRW 14,321,632,438). As such, insofar as the total amount of the negative property subject to division exceeds the total amount of the property subject to division of property under the Defendant’s name, in principle, the scope of division of property under the Intervenor’s name should be determined by having the Intervenor’s property division more active in the name of the Intervenor and the Intervenor’s name at the time of division of property.

② In light of the Defendant’s occupation, details of the property subject to division of property between the Defendant and the Intervenor, etc., it is difficult to view that the Defendant has contributed significantly to the formation and maintenance of the joint property with the Intervenor. However, even if the Defendant did not acquire the instant real property, the active property under the name exceeds KRW 638,351,007 (=1,388,351,007 - 750,000,000).

③ The sons of the Defendant and the Intervenor were both the 1980s and the 1981s and were adults at the time of the instant division of property. Furthermore, there is no evidence suggesting that the Defendant, while having reached a division of property between the Intervenor and the Intervenor, had the obligation to support the son after the divorce, or had the obligation to support the son actually fulfilled the obligation to support.

④ The Defendant and the Intervenor have maintained a normal matrimonial relationship for about 33 years, and the need to minimize the Defendant’s economic difficulties due to the arrest, etc. of the Intervenor is difficult to find other reasons. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s refusal of the Defendant’s claim for consolation money against the Intervenor during the instant agreement on division of property has a significant meaning in determining the reasonableness of division of property.

B) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the Intervenor lent KRW 1,200,000 to the Intervenor on December 15, 201, and KRW 200,00,000 on May 31, 2012, and that the Defendant lent KRW 200,000 to the Intervenor’s shares issued by Korea owned by the Defendant, the market price of which is equivalent to KRW 91,463,400 on August 13, 2012, and that the Defendant lent KRW 6,222 of the shares issued by the Defendant’s shares issued by Korea, which is equivalent to KRW 91,463,400 on August 13, 2012, in determining the reasonableness of

The evidence that conforms to the Defendant’s assertion is indicated in the evidence Nos. 6 and 7 (Agreement on Loan for Use of Money). However, the fact that the Defendant and the Intervenor, who were the normal husband and wife, engage in transactions in the position of creditor and debtor and left a disposal document is considerably different. Moreover, it is difficult to find any circumstances to deem the money or shares claimed by the Defendant as the Defendant’s unique property, not the common property of the Defendant and the Intervenor. In addition, considering that the division agreement of property in this case does not state any mention about the existence or amount of the Defendant’s claim against the Intervenor, the respective evidence Nos. 6 and 7 cannot be trusted, and it is insufficient to recognize the existence of the claim against the Intervenor as alleged by the Defendant solely on the evidence No. 9, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion in this part of this case is without merit.

D. As to the existence and good faith of a private will

(A) In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the beneficiary’s bad faith is presumed. Therefore, with respect to the fact that the beneficiary is a bad faith, the beneficiary is not liable to prove his/her good faith (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da49783, Dec. 11, 2014, etc.).

(B) First of all, according to the facts acknowledged in paragraph (1), the intervenor was not only in excess of his/her obligation at the time of the instant division of property, but also could have increased economic difficulties by filing a public prosecution after being detained on October 25, 2013 and demanding the performance of joint and several liability obligations from SBI Korea Holdings. ② In the instant real estate, the intervenor’s active property was the largest of the Intervenor’s active property. Therefore, it is well known that the intervenor would prejudice other general creditors including the Plaintiff following the instant division of property agreement with the content of transferring the instant real estate to the Defendant.

(C) Meanwhile, according to the facts acknowledged in paragraph (1), when the intervenor was detained on October 25, 2013 and the defendant was prosecuted on November 12, 11, 201, the defendant applied for divorce with the Seoul Family Court on November 22, 196 immediately thereafter, and made the agreement on division of property with the intervenor on December 6, 12. In addition, the defendant seems to have been well aware of the situation where the intervenor’s property status has deteriorated rapidly as the intervenor’s wife, and the defendant applied for provisional injunction on disposal of the real estate of this case on December 9, 2013, after the agreement on division of property of this case, ② The defendant applied for provisional injunction on disposal of the real estate of this case on December 9, 2013, and this is difficult to undermine the presumption of bad faith of the defendant, the beneficiary’s assertion and evidence submitted by the defendant alone.

E. Sub-committee

The instant agreement on division of property ought to be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act by losing its reasonableness. Meanwhile, according to the facts acknowledged in paragraph (1), the instant real estate was either impossible or considerably difficult to return its original property due to the transfer of ownership to Nonparty 7 on April 21, 2014, after the instant agreement on division of property.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,100,000 (=the market price of the instant real estate 29), 5,700,000,000,000 - the sum of the secured debt when each of the collateral established on the instant real estate at the time of the instant property division consultation is cancelled or when the obligation is performed with immunity, 3,600,000,000 (=the sum of the secured debt of the secured debt of the KOB Bank, 2,800,000,000 + the sum of the secured debt of the secured debt of the KOB Bank, 30,000,000), as well as to delay damages at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, from the day following the date the instant judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning. The judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with a different conclusion. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal shall be accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as prescribed in paragraph

[Attachment]

Judges Song Jin-do (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) As of the end of December 2012, the Intervenor owned 50.16% of the Plaintiff’s shares issued by the Plaintiff.

2) As of June 30, 2012, 35,276 shares issued by Deditain (27.5%) among 128,276 shares were attributed to the Defendant, 39,667 shares (30.92%) to Nonparty 8 (1980 shares) who is the south of the Defendant, and 52,283 shares (40.76% shares) were attributed to Nonparty 9 (1981 shares) who is the south of the Defendant, and thereafter there seems to be no change in the ratio of shares of each of the shareholders or shareholders. The Intervenor used the aforementioned Hadi Investment’s shareholders structure as above, 35,276 shares (27.9%) to the Defendant, 39,67 shares (30.92%), and the Defendant was actually in the second half of the year, 2006, 708 shares of the Defendant’s shares (40.78% shares) to the Defendant’s shares (1981 shares).

3) The real estate security trust agreement concluded on August 21, 2012 between the intervenor and the Asian trust stipulated the priority beneficiary as “Spo Mutual Savings Bank” and “4,200,000,000,000”.

4) From the next day, the status in a lawsuit is not different for convenience.

(5) In the first instance court of this case, the Plaintiff asserted that each of the mortgage agreement concluded between the Intervenor and Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4, Nonparty 5, and Nonparty 6 regarding the instant real estate constituted a fraudulent act, and the first instance court accepted all of the Plaintiff’s claims on this part. As to this, the Plaintiff filed an appeal on April 15 and April 18, 2016, respectively, but the appeal was withdrawn on October 26, 2017. Ultimately, the part against Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4, Nonparty 5, and Nonparty 6 in the first instance judgment became final and conclusive.

State6) Receiving number 104823 means the secured claim for the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage, No. 104823.

Note7) In the case of a loan to the non-party 13 and the non-party 13 of the borrower, the remaining principal as of August 13, 2015 (“non-party 13,60,000 + + KRW 11,33,703,251 won (=the remaining principal of the loan as of June 30, 2010 + KRW 5,819,40,890) of the remaining principal of the loan as of July 28, 2010).

(8) The Plaintiff took over the lawsuit of each bank from 2 to 4 of the instant case while pending the lawsuit in the relevant first civil case.

9) The Plaintiff took over the lawsuit of each bank from 2 to 4 of this case while pending the lawsuit of the second civil case related to the second civil case.

10) In the case of real estate, the amount calculated on January 1, 2014 as the officially announced value as of January 1, 2014, unless otherwise specified.

Note 11) From the following day, “the instant site and buildings on the ground.”

Note 12) In light of the trend of a fluctuation in the ordinary real estate market price as of July 27, 2015, such recognition of the market price is not deemed disadvantageous to the defendant or the intervenor.

13) Of the instant ○○ Dong site and its ground buildings, Nonparty 17-1/2 shares were provided as joint collateral.

Note 14) As of December 31, 2013, capital -143,513,00,000 as of December 31, 2013 did not recognize the value of shares in capital erosion.

Note 15) On December 31, 2013, capital as of December 31, 2013 -60,287,00,000 did not recognize the value of the shares in capital erosion.

16) At the time of December 2013, the Bank No. 4 of the instant case calculated by multiplying the Intervenor’s equity ratio by KRW 19,455,00,000.

Note 17) As from the following, “PPCB”:

Note 18) As of December 2013, recognized by the PPCB’s settlement of accounts in 2014, calculated by multiplying the Intervenor’s equity ratio by USD 47,092,528 (the exchange rate as of December 31, 2013 is KRW 1,050.5) value of the total shareholder shares of PPCB as of December 2013.

Note 19) At the time of March 2014, calculated by multiplying the Intervenor’s equity ratio by KRW 10,780,63,207.

Note 20) As of December 2013, calculated by multiplying the number of shares owned by the Intervenor by the base price of KRW 9,600 per share as of December 2013.

Note 21) On December 15, 2011, Detain leased KRW 17,157,80,80,000, total of KRW 36,281,484,80,80 to the Intervenor’s Gyeonggi-b&D operated by the Intervenor, with the interest rate of KRW 10% per annum, and KRW 17,157,80,000, total of KRW 36,281,484,80. As of December 31, 2013, the principal was paid in KRW 11,295,113,69, and the principal was paid in KRW 24,986,371,101 (interest and delay damages were paid in KRW 5,971,69,69,454). However, there was no evidence that the Intervenor’s principal and redemption was appropriated for the Intervenor’s principal repayment of the principal, KRW 197,298,29,298,200,00 for the Intervenor’s and the Intervenor’s debt.

주22) 다음부터 ‘이 사건 ▷▷동 아파트’라 한다.

Note 23) The average market price in July 2015 is the average price.

24) According to the market value appraisal of Nonparty 19, the fact that the Defendant’s shares issued 35,276 share shares issued by the Company was assessed as KRW 992,494,135 shares at the time of December 31, 2013 is recognized. However, Nonparty 19 considered Nonparty 19 as one of the main data for appraisal of financial statements prepared by Hadar Investment. The Korea Accounting Corporation, which is an outside auditor of Hadar Investment, continues to engage in 2012 financial statements for the 2012-year period of 2013-year period of 2013-year period of 2013-year period of 2013, on the grounds that the capacity of Hadar Investment’s company is uncertain, it is difficult to present their respective opinions on the financial statements prepared by Hadar Investment for reasons of limitation of audit scope and lack of accounting records, and there is no other objective evidence to acknowledge that Nonparty 1’s shares were likely to have been sold at the time of 2016-year 16-20.

Note 25) The Intervenor is entitled to approximately KRW 561,750 as interest on KRW 96,00,000,000 each month from Do governor securities.

26) In the case of active property under the name of the Intervenor, it appears that there is no particular difference between the market price as of December 6, 2013, which was reported of divorce and the market price as of January 16, 2014, at which the instant agreement on division of property was made. Therefore, the market price at the time of the instant agreement on division of property recognized under paragraph (1) is applied.

(27) On January 10, 2014, immediately before the filing of the divorce, Nonparty 18, on January 18, 2014, the following are excluded: (a) 23,207 square meters of forest land ( Address 3 omitted); (b) 21,025 square meters of forest land ( Address 4 omitted); (c) 15,868 square meters of forest land ( Address 5 omitted); and (d) 67,934 square meters of forest land ( Address 6 omitted).

28) Among active property subject to division of property between the Defendant and the Intervenor, there is no evidence to acknowledge the objective value in the case of the equity shares of 35,276 shares issued under the name of the Defendant, and the equity shares of 17,201,447,616 shares to the Police Mutual Aid Association, an incorporated under the name of the Intervenor, and the equity shares of 17,201,447,616 shares of NAS 1. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the objective value in the case of the equity shares of NAS 17,201,47,616 shares. However, the Defendant asserted that “Is Investment did not have the value of the equity shares at the time of November 28, 2013,” based on the legal brief dated September 28, 2016, the Defendant and the Intervenor did not mention each of the said equity shares as the Intervenor’s main positive property at the time of filing a divorce report.

(29) It is presumed that the market price as of December 22, 2017, which was the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, as the sales price stipulated in the instant sales contract concluded on March 24, 2014 between the Defendant and Nonparty 7, is similar to that as of December 22, 2017 (the Defendant and the Intervenor did not dispute the market price as at the time of closing of argument in the instant

30) Since the judgment of the court of first instance, in the case of each right to collateral security with the mortgagee of the right to collateral security as Nonparty 3, 4, 5, and 6, the agreement establishing the right to collateral security constituted a fraudulent act, the amount of the secured obligation shall not be deducted.