The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected all the Defendants’ assertion that the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against A cannot be a preserved right for revocation of fraudulent act as to the instant sales contract, and that the instant sales contract and gift contract do not constitute a fraudulent act, on the grounds that the Plaintiff had a preferential right to reimbursement by acquiring a collateral security right to Q2 owned by A with respect to the obligation to lend to A (hereinafter “A”) which is the principal obligation of the instant credit guarantee agreement at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract.

Although the reasoning of the lower court on this part is somewhat inappropriate, it did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the determination of fraudulent act, Supreme Court Decision 2009Da549, Decision 2009Da549, Decision 2009Da549, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.