The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the part of “1. Basic Facts” of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the claim of denial against omission of the instant lawsuit constitutes an act of not responding to the claims for damages filed by the Defendants and the designated parties against A and the claims for return of investment deposit (hereinafter “instant omission”) as a means of a fraudulent act reducing the debtor’s general property, which is a joint security of the bankruptcy creditor, or an act of undermining equal distribution among bankruptcy creditors, thereby falling under the subject of avoidance prescribed in the former part of Article 395 and Article 391 subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), and thus, the Plaintiff is denied.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to confirm that each of the corresponding amounts and damages for delay stated in the “amount” column in the attached Table 3 list against the Defendants and the designated parties in this case does not exist.

Judgment

The "act of the bankrupt, which is an act subject to avoidance under Article 391 subparagraph 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, knowing that the bankruptcy creditor would prejudice the bankruptcy creditor" not only the so-called fraudulent act which absolutely reduces the general property of the bankrupt who is a joint security of all creditors, but also the so-called biased act which is contrary to the fairness with other bankruptcy creditors by affecting the bankrupt's property relations, such as repayment to a specific creditor or provision of security to a specific creditor, and thus favorable to a specific bankruptcy creditor, but also it is necessary to include the so-called biased act which is contrary to the fairness with other bankruptcy creditors. However, in order to be recognized as an intentional person as above, the bankrupt should be aware of the intention of the type of act subject to denial under the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.