1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff (Appointed)'s claim against the defendant.

1. The court's explanation about the existence of the preserved claim in the judgment of the court of first instance as to the basic facts of this case, the judgment on the main defense of this case, and the existence of the preserved claim in the judgment on the main defense is the same as the above part, except where the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance are cited or added as follows, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【The part to be cited or added 【Defendant C’ in the last three parallels 【The Co-Defendant C” and “Defendant C” in the remainder as “C” and “the Defendant” in the entirety.

8 The following shall be added to 9 pages:

【3) The Defendant, even if there were claims of G.

However, G asserts that G claims were fully repaid when considering the circumstances such as the establishment and cancellation of the right to collateral security on each real estate owned by M(C) and C, which are the debtor.

However, there is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge that G’s preserved claim is not existing as it has already been repaid by the respective statements in the evidence Nos. 11 through 17, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Whether the fraudulent act is constituted;

A. If an insolvent debtor who is the object of a fraudulent act is to transfer his/her own responsible property to a beneficiary through a litigation procedure, and the judgment against him/her or the decision of recommending reconciliation to that effect is finalized by means of confession, etc. in a lawsuit filed by the beneficiary, and accordingly, the registration of transfer of ownership of the responsible property has been completed in the beneficiary’s future, the agreement between the debtor and the beneficiary, which is the substantial cause of such series of acts, may constitute a fraudulent act detrimental to

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da204783, Apr. 7, 2017). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, C is related to the health care unit, Gap’s evidence Nos. 8 and 16.