The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the first instance judgment partially accepted by the lower court, the lower court is so decided as per Disposition.

In light of the circumstances, the Intervenor’s new mutual savings bank, Inc., Ltd.

As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet of the court below and the defendant in order to secure a loan obligation.

The debtor, EPP Construction Co., Ltd. and the first beneficiary, Inc., and 7 others.

Body of the Real Estate Security Trust Contract (hereinafter referred to as the "Trust Contract of this case") with the following persons as participants;

With respect to the Intervenor’s excess of the obligation at the time of the determination, ① Land A et al. and three parcels of land in Gwangju City

1. 1, 276, 756, and 00 won; 2.10,692, 724, and 00 won deposited in the Bank of Korea;

Under each insurance contract entered into with multiple insurance companies entered in the original judgment, such as gold, bonds, and Samsung Bio-resources.

Amounting to KRW 2,106, 712, 019, ④ 15, 763, 889, and 852, as at the time of the instant trust contract, limited to the amount equivalent to KRW 2,106, 712, 019.

The shares of the Central Urban Development Corporation were recognized and equivalent to KRW 5,137, 795, 500 as a small property.

(2) 20, 500, 000, 000

In the end, the Intervenor’s active participation after the conclusion of the instant trust contract, by recognizing the obligation of the loan equivalent to the cost.

Property 29, 840, 081, 871 (won 1, 276, 756, 000 + 10, 692, 724, 000 won + 2, 106, 712, 019 won in total.

+15, 763, 889, 852) The small property is a sum of 25,637, 795, 500 won (5, 137, 795, 500 won +

20, 500, 000, 000) It is difficult to find that the intervenor was in a state of excess of the obligation at that time.

Considering that the instant trust contract was not a fraudulent act, it determined that the instant trust contract was not a fraudulent act.

In light of the records, we affirm the above judgment of the court below and there is a fraudulent act.

There is no error that affected the judgment due to the misapprehension of the legal principle concerning the case, the incomplete hearing, or the omission of judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party, including the costs of appeal.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim Gin-young

Chief Justice Lee Ki-taik