1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which reads “ August 24, 2014 as the result of the said lawsuit” as “ August 28, 2014 as the result of the said lawsuit”; and (b) the Defendant’s additional argument in this court is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of “the additional determination” as to this case’s additional argument, and thus, (c) the same shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Additional determination

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) In a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act filed against the Defendant, although the Defendant was declared to compensate for the value by transferring the right to claim dividend payment against the Republic of Korea in accordance with the distribution schedule set out in the distribution procedure set out in Jeonju District Court Southern Branch D in the distribution procedure to E and F, the judgment of the first instance that ordered the Plaintiff to compensate for the value of KRW 6 million is contrary to equity. 2) Even if the Defendant’s assertion of the Plaintiff’s fraudulent act is accepted, the amount recognized as a fraudulent act should be distributed proportionally to the creditors as a joint security against all of the Cheongchi Construction’s creditors, and thus, the amount claimed by the Plaintiff should not be apportioned to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.

B. Determination 1) The fact that the Defendant had already received KRW 27,014,720 in the distribution procedure of Jeonju District Court Southern Branch D is as seen earlier. As such, in the event that the Defendant, a beneficiary, receives the dividend upon the termination of the distribution, the Defendant should order the Defendant to return the dividend itself. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit. 2) The revocation and restitution of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant cannot repay all of the Plaintiff’s claim amount is effective for the benefit of all creditors, and therefore, the revocation obligee is against the property restored to the obligor by exercising the obligee’s right of revocation.