사해행위취소
1. The plaintiffs' appeal and the preliminary claim filed in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After the appeal:
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment on the conjunctive claim newly raised in the court of first instance is added as follows. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim
A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the plaintiffs, while substantially operating the store of this case by contributing funds to E and F, they are the defendants, and the defendant is able to evade obligations under F and E by such means as devolving the profits therefrom in the defendant's name. Thus, they constitute joint tort, and therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages arising therefrom.
B. Based on the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, it is insufficient to recognize that E/F actually operates the instant store, E/F contributed funds to establish the store, and through this, the Defendant is helping to avoid compulsory execution by E/F, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ preliminary claim is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' primary claims are dismissed as they are without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just. Thus, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the plaintiffs' preliminary claims newly filed in the trial are dismissed as they are also without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.