The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged facts as stated in its reasoning, and it is difficult to find that B and C were in a state of insolvency at the time of the closing of argument in the court below, and it is difficult to find that there was a state of excess of the obligation at the time of signing a contract to purchase and sell real estate as of December 2, 2010 between B and Defendant C on each of the real estate listed in the list of the attached Table Nos. 1 through (10) of the court below (hereinafter “mortgage No. 11 of this case”), and between B and Defendant D as of December 8, 2010. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below’s aforementioned judgment is acceptable, and it did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the right to revoke creditor’

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that it was difficult to view that the lending of money or the negotiation of purchase and sale among B and the Defendants was the most in collusion.

This part of the judgment of the court below is merely a decision on the family register, and as seen earlier, B was in an insolvent state at the time of closing argument in the court below.

Inasmuch as the lower court’s determination that it was difficult to recognize that the instant mortgage contract and the pre-sale agreement were in excess of the obligation at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract was justifiable, the propriety of the aforementioned provisional determination as to the family register does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the grounds of appeal

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.