The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The recognition of facts as to the grounds of appeal by Plaintiffs A, C, and B and the selection of evidence and the evaluation of the value of evidence, which are the premise thereof, are within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court, unless it exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

Of the grounds of appeal, the part disputing the insolvency of Defendant I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”) with respect to the primary claim, and the part disputing whether there is a false declaration of agreement with the amount of preserved claim and the amount of preliminary claim is one of the grounds of appeal, but the part disputing the fact-finding of the lower court.

However, even if examining the record, the lower court did not recognize that there was an error of law beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, but did not err by misapprehending the relevant legal principles.

In addition, the judgment of the court below that the purchase and sale reservation or mortgage contract between Defendant I and the other Defendants does not constitute a fraudulent act is acceptable in light of the facts acknowledged by the court below and the relevant legal principles.

The lower court did not err in its judgment by erroneously understanding the relevant legal principles or the purport of the Supreme Court precedents, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. The court of final appeal may deliberate and decide on Plaintiff D’s grounds of final appeal only to the extent of filing an appeal based on the grounds of final appeal. As such, the grounds of final appeal should be specified in the judgment below’s specific and explicit reasons as to which part of the judgment below’s grounds of final appeal is against the law

When the appellant does not state such specific and explicit reasons in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief submitted by the appellant, it is inevitable to treat the legitimate appellate brief as not being submitted.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da3943 delivered on May 14, 1993, etc.). In this case, Plaintiff D asserted as the Defendant’s ground of appeal in the petition of appeal.