1. As to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet between Defendant G and Defendant B among the lawsuits regarding the primary claim of this case.

1. Judgment as to the main claim

A. (1) In a case where a creditor who made a judgment on the legitimacy of a lawsuit against a subsequent purchaser files a lawsuit for the revocation of a fraudulent act against the subsequent purchaser and seeking the recovery of responsible property, the effect of the revocation is limited to the relative relationship between the creditor and the subsequent purchaser, and does not affect the legal relationship between the debtor and the subsequent purchaser. In such a case, the fraudulent act subject to the revocation is limited to a legal act conducted between the debtor and the beneficiary, and the legal act between the beneficiary and the subsequent purchaser is not subject to the revocation (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da21923, Aug. 30, 2004). Therefore, the lawsuit on the claim under paragraphs (1) and (2) of the main claim seeking the revocation of a legal act between the beneficiary and the subsequent purchaser is unlawful.

(2) The determination on the cause of the claim (A) on May 20, 2013, the Plaintiff of the preserved claim set the lease deposit amount of KRW 25,00,000, and the lease term of KRW 27, 2015, and the lease deposit amount of KRW 25,00,00, and the lease term of KRW 27, 2015. As to the above house, the auction procedure of real estate was conducted by this court Nro; the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 8,873,235, out of the lease deposit; L died on December 17, 2014; the fact that he succeeded to Defendant C, E, G, H, I, and K, his children, can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions and the entire arguments stated in subparagraphs A and 2, and thus, the preserved claim is recognized.

(B) Comprehensively taking account of the debtor’s fraudulent act, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including provisional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings, L is according to the evidence No. 1-2 of Jan. 13, 2014, or evidence Nos. 22,00,00 as of January 15, 201, L was holding the real estate of this case, which is equivalent to KRW 22,00,000 recognized by the defendant’s side, and claims equivalent to KRW 2,70,000,000 as to the above housing.