The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the instant lawsuit brought by Plaintiff B was brought after the limitation period expired, and determined that the agreement between Plaintiff E and the Defendant, which caused the preparation of No. 1 No. 1 No. 1 notarial deed, constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to another general creditor, as a debt repayment contract.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the exclusion period of creditor’s right of revocation or the establishment of fraudulent act

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the allegation in the ground of appeal that the revocation obligee receiving the compensation for value contradicts the principle of fairness that it actually receiving the preferential repayment goes against the principle of fairness is not a legitimate ground of appeal. Furthermore, even if examined, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the right of revocation, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.