2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

(B) “A. Guarantee Accident” in the judgment of the court of first instance 3rd and 3rd below b. “A. Guarantee Accident”. (B) Evidence No. 13 of “A. 14 to 40 of the fourth bottom of the judgment below,” “B, 5th and above,” in the testimony “I.D. A., the following, for a court, the Korean Scaddrid Bank, Samsung Tax Office, Samsung C. C. C., Inc., a new bank, calendar T. C., Korea Bank, National Bank, Changdong Branch, and Daegu Livestock Industry Cooperatives, and each fact-finding or a response to an order to submit financial transaction information, respectively. However, ① The above assertion is without merit, ② the part following the second 5th lower part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and ② the lower 5th to 4th below, and the lower part of the Defendants’ respective arguments are without merit.

[Supplementary decision-making part] Article 108(2) of the Civil Code provides that even if the supply contract entered into between the intervenor and the co-defendant C (Co-defendant of the first instance court), who is the representative director of the co-defendant B of the first instance court, and the subsequent advance payment in collusion with each other, the invalidity of false conspiracy under Article 108(2) of the Civil Code does not oppose a bona fide third party

Here, a bona fide third party means a person other than a party of false indication and a general successor, who has a substantial new legal interest based on the legal relationship formed by a false indication.

In addition, this is to protect those who enter a legal relationship with a unique legal interest by a separate legal cause based on the legal relationship formed externally.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da51258, Jul. 6, 2000). In this case, the Plaintiff against the co-defendant B of the first instance trial.