1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Defendant and co-defendants in the first instance trial.

1. The reasons why this Court has used for this part of the basic facts are as follows: “Defendant F Co., Ltd. F” to “Co-Defendant F Co-Defendant F of the first instance trial”; “Defendant F” to “Co-Defendant F of the first instance trial”; and “Defendant G” to “Defendant”, one of the reasons for the first instance judgment, except for the case where each of “Defendant F” to “Defendant F.”

As stated in the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the term “basic facts” is the same as the stated in the part of the “basic facts” (from Chapter 7 to Chapter 14 of the judgment of the first instance court).

2. The reason why the court has used this part of the establishment of the preserved claim is as follows: 1-B of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except that the date of pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance is "the date of pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance" with "the date of pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance."

The judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the entry of the part “judgment” in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is the same as the entry of the fifth to 18 pages of the court of first instance.

3. 2-A of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of the corresponding part as follows:

The phrase “the establishment of fraudulent act” is identical to the description of “the establishment of fraudulent act” in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to the description of “the 8th judgment of the court of first instance” (the 6th judgment of the court of first instance).

Each "Defendant F" is divided into "Co-Defendant F of the first instance trial", "Defendant G" into "Defendant G", and "Expert J and K" in Part 5 of the first instance judgment into "Expert J and M".

B. The fact that the transfer contract was concluded with respect to the instant current asset and gold type “the instant current asset” and “the current asset was equivalent to KRW 3,161,329,200” of the first instance judgment, and that “the current asset was equivalent to KRW 3,161,329,200” entered into a transfer contract with respect to the instant current asset and gold type assets (hereinafter “instant contract for the transfer of current asset”). At the time, the current asset was 3,161,329,200 won at the market price.