The reason why the court's explanation concerning this part is that the "foreign company" of the first instance court's judgment is "D", "the contract of this case" is "the first contract of this case", "57,729,681,400 won" of the third part "57,529,681,400 won" of the third part "the 12th part "the 57,529,681,400 won", "this court" of the 15th part "the 15th part "the 4th part "the 4th part "the 4th part "the 4th part" is the same as the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance except for the 420th part "the 4th part"

F. On December 23, 2011, Busan Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Busan Bank”) transferred all of the claims against D to a limited liability company specializing in the securitization of the company, and notified the assignment of claims on January 13, 2012.

G. Meanwhile, D was declared bankrupt on June 24, 2013 by the Changwon District Court 2013Hahap9, and the present bankruptcy proceeding is in progress.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap's evidence 6, 8, Eul evidence 5, 7, 10, 11 (including spot numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the result of each inquiry into Busan Bank on April 24, 2012 by the court of the first instance on the issue of the first instance court, on the Busan Bank and the UPS Specialized Asset-backed Securitization Co., Ltd. of the Busan Bank and the UPS Specialized Asset-Backed Co., Ltd.

2. Determination as to whether each of the contracts of this case was based on false conspiracys

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant actually did not have a claim for reimbursement of KRW 1.455 million against B, but he in collusion with the defendant B and C for the purpose of evading the joint and several liability of the plaintiff, and concluded each of the contracts of this case. Thus, each of the contracts of this case is invalid.

B. According to the findings of the fact-finding, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the fact-finding with the Busan Bank on April 24, 2012 by the court of first instance, the fact-finding with respect to the defendant's claim for time deposit amounting to KRW 1,450,000,000 against Busan Bank, and the defendant Eul has the claim for time deposit amounting to KRW 1,450