1. The Defendants in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, including a claim for exchange change in this court.

The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows: (a) on November 15, 2018, "A" on November 18, 2019, "B" on November 18, 2018, "B" on November 25, 2018, "B" on November 15, 2018; and (b) on November 29, 2018, "B" on November 14, 2018, two nine (29) through 8 (2) of the first instance court's decision on the determination of "the method of cancelling and restoring to original state" following the plaintiff's request for restitution. As to the determination of "the method of cancelling and restoring to original state" on November 19, 2019, the first instance court's decision and the second instance court's decision are cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 20 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following cases.

(However, the part regarding Codefendant C Co., Ltd. of the first instance court which was separated and confirmed is excluded). 2. Whether each of the instant mortgage contract constitutes fraudulent act

A. In determining whether a fraudulent act constitutes a fraudulent act subject to revocation by relevant legal principles, if the property owned by an obligor is provided as a physical collateral for another obligee’s claims, the portion offered as a physical collateral cannot be deemed as the obligor’s liability property for the general obligees. Therefore, such fraudulent act is established within the extent of the value of the property, namely, the value of the property, within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the secured claim amount of the mortgage from the market value, and if the secured claim amount exceeds the value of the property

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da42618 delivered on October 09, 2001, etc.). Meanwhile, since whether a fraudulent act is established falls under the requirement to exercise the right of revocation, a creditor who exercises the right of revocation falls under the requirement to exercise the right of revocation, the creditor who exercises the right of revocation, as above, does not exceed the value of the real estate, and thus the amount of the secured claim does not exceed