Attached Form

same as the reasons for the claim.

Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of the Acts (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Civil Procedure), defendant D also did not give specific answers.

Inasmuch as a creditor’s claim for revocation and restitution of the same fraudulent act was finalized by a favorable judgment in favor of the creditor, the same claim filed thereafter does not lose the benefit in the protection of rights, and as a result, a creditor’s claim for revocation and restitution would no benefit in the protection of rights to the extent that the same claim is overlapped (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da19558, Jul. 11, 2003). Thus, even if the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund has filed a lawsuit against Defendant D against the judgment rendered final and conclusive by the same judgment as stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the disposition, there is no evidence to deem the completion of the recovery of property or value by the time of rendering a final and conclusive judgment, the Plaintiff has the benefit in the protection of rights to the claim against Defendant D.