2. Litigation costs between the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. As the cause of the instant claim against the Defendant, the Plaintiff was liable for reimbursement of the principal and interest of the Plaintiff. Around September 26, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that the act of entering into the instant sales contract with the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff from the so-called “a status in excess of the obligation” to September 26, 2018, and sought against the Defendant for the cancellation of the instant sales contract and the implementation of the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer from the purport of the claim due to restitution to its original state, the Defendant was the so-called “a bona fide beneficiary” at the time of entering into the instant sales contract, and thus the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant

B. If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements in part of Eul, Eul, Eul, and Eul's 3-12 and witness Eul's witness's testimony, the defendant is recognized as a circumstance that "the defendant was "a bona fide beneficiary" who was unaware of the fact that it would make it impossible to fully satisfy the claims of general creditors, including the plaintiff, because the joint security of Eul is insufficient or it is less than one story under the sales contract of this case." Thus, the defendant's argument that this issue is reasonable, and the plaintiff's assertion that this issue is remaining as the cause of the claim of this case cannot be accepted without further review.

2. Accordingly, we cannot accept all of the Plaintiff’s respective claims of this case.