1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is applicable.

1. As to the instant case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, this court’s reasoning is identical to the statement in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following portions written by the court of first instance as to the instant case. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main

(However, the part of Section 2-2 (A) of the first instance judgment, which was written after the separation of the court of first instance E, F, and G, is written after the following:

“A) Whether a testamentary gift of the deceased on November 23, 2015 constitutes a fraudulent act (1) If the debtor donated his/her own property to another person under obligation, such an act constitutes a fraudulent act, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da28686, May 31, 2007; 2014Da41575, Oct. 27, 2014). (2) At the time of the instant will, the deceased was holding the obligation of KRW 1,80,000 against the plaintiffs at the time of the instant will, and according to each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 12 and 21, the deceased brought an action against the deceased on February 26, 2015 (hereinafter “S”), and the deceased’s entire decision of KRW 1,80,000, 200, 1600, 2016, 2017, 308, 3016, 160.

When compiling each of the above facts, it is recognized that at the time of the will of this case, the Deceased had owned at least KRW 18,681,697,00 (=16,000,000,800,000 won) equivalent to KRW 881,697,000).

Meanwhile, at the time of the instant will, the Deceased held the entire shares issued by S as active property (100,000 shares) and 9.9% of the J’s shares (9,900 shares) respectively.

However, Gap evidence No. 13, and Eul.