A. In light of the existence of the preserved claim and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 12, Gap evidence Nos. 10-1, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 10-1, and Eul evidence No. 16 and all pleadings, Eul Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "C") agreed on February 10, 2014 to return to the plaintiff KRW 600,000,000,000, the above agreed amount claim (hereinafter referred to as "agreement claim") can be the preserved claim.

Therefore, the defendant asserts that the above agreement for return of investment amount is null and void as the agreement for return of investment amount is null and void as the agreement for false representation, and thus, the claim of this case cannot be a preserved claim. Thus, according to the overall purport of the statement and arguments in evidence Nos. 1, 1-1, 2, and 3, the plaintiff was a co-representative of C from September 2, 2013 to February 19, 2014; ② the agreement for return of investment amount was concluded on February 10, 2014, which was about five months from September 2, 2013, the date of payment alleged by the plaintiff, which was about five months from September 2, 2013, which was prepared before the plaintiff loses a co-representative; ③ The evidence No. 2 (Agreement for return of investment amount) prepared in the name of D, a co-representative of the plaintiff; ④ The agreement for return of investment amount was made in the name of 12 years after the conclusion date of the above agreement for return of investment amount was insufficient, but there is insufficient evidence to find otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. In a case where a debtor’s act of reducing liability property and a fraudulent act causes or deepens the shortage of common security for general creditors, whether such act constitutes a fraudulent act subject to creditor’s revocation has the weight of the debtor’s entire responsible property, the degree of insolvency, and the economic purpose of a juristic act.