A. Defendant A, B, C, and D are jointly and severally 1,579,703,149 won and their importance.

2. Grounds for recognition;

(a) Defendant 1 through 4: Judgment on deemed confession (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act);

B. Defendant E: A without any dispute, each entry in Gap 1 or 21 evidence (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole, defendant E, to the effect that he acted in good faith.

Where a debtor's property is insufficient to fully repay his/her obligation, if the debtor provided his/her property to a certain creditor as payment in kind or as a security, barring any special circumstance, it would directly compromise the interests of other creditors and thus, would be presumed a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da47301, Feb. 23, 2007). In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed to be a fraudulent act. The beneficiary bears the burden of proof. In such a case, objective and objective evidence, etc. should be supported when recognizing that the beneficiary was acting as a beneficiary at the time of the fraudulent act. Only in the case of the debtor's unilateral statement or a statement that is only a third party's abstract statement, and thus, it cannot be concluded that the beneficiary was acting as a beneficiary at the time of the fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da60466, Jul. 22, 2010).

Therefore, Defendant E’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.