1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.

2...

1. The reasons for the entry of this part of the facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the facts of recognition under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are as follows: (b) in addition to the fact that “Defendant B and C” in Section 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance is applied to “B” as “B”; and (c) such fact is cited in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion B is KRW 603,262,50,000 in the calculation of the purchase price, and KRW 603,262,50 in the calculation of KRW 603,262,50,00, after selling shares of KRW 5/8 among the real estate first in excess of the obligation, such as the obligation to jointly and severally pay for the Plaintiff KRW 36.7 million.

[The amount of KRW 1.65 billion in total - KRW 660 million in total - brokerage commission - KRW 14,895,00 in capital gains tax - KRW 14,884,90 in capital gains tax - 5/8] donated or transferred the claim, which constitutes a fraudulent act.

The plaintiff, within the limit of KRW 36.7 million, shall cancel the above monetary donation contract and the above assignment contract in preliminary case, and seek compensation for the value of the defendant, who is the beneficiary, within the limit of KRW 36.7 million.

B. The Defendant’s assertion concluded a sales contract for the first real estate jointly owned by the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant, and received the sales amount, and then temporarily stored 603,262,500 won, which is equivalent to B shares, in the Defendant’s account, in lieu of B which cannot be operated with bovine spongiformiform encephalopathy, and used it by dividing it into the account of A according to the instructions of B and remitting it

Since the defendant did not receive the above 603,262,50 won as gift from B or take over its claim, there is no fraudulent act asserted by the plaintiff.

C. In order to recognize that a monetary donation contract or an assignment contract exists, among the first real estate claimed by the Plaintiff, was concluded, a donation contract or an assignment contract on the share purchase price was concluded, there was a mutual agreement between B and the Defendant on the fact that the said purchase price that the Defendant received is ultimately reverted to the Defendant.