2.(a)

See Attached Table 1, Nos. 1 and 2.

2. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

B. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the establishment of the fraudulent act is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited by applying the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

C. Defendant B’s assertion that Defendant B had become aware of D while entering into a contract for the First Sale of this case. Defendant B performed a collateral obligation under the name of F organization established in the name of the first and second real estate in the instant case, which was completed prior to the conclusion of the said contract, and paid the purchase price to D with the loan that was granted as collateral, and thus, is a bona fide beneficiary. (A) The beneficiary’s bad faith is presumed in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act, and thus, the beneficiary is presumed to have been bad faith. In this case, whether the beneficiary was bona fide or not should be determined in light of the logical rule by comprehensively taking into account the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary, the details of and motive for the act of disposal between the debtor and the beneficiary, whether there was no special circumstance to suspect it, and whether there was objective evidence to support the normal transaction relationship, and circumstances after the act of disposal, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da42715, Jul. 10, 2007).