1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if the defendant's evidence submitted in the court of first instance is comprehensively based on the

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of the defendant's bona fide defense as follows and adding Paragraph 2 to the grounds for rejection of the defendant's bona fide defense. Thus, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 4 "B" under the item 2 for the second reason shall be deemed "B of the C representative director."

Pursuant to the second reasons, the first part of the first part, “B’s passive property at the time of the instant sales contract exceeded positive property” is that “B at the time of the instant sales contract owns active property, not only 218/1,050 of the instant real property (16530/18), but also 30/4,378 of the equity interest in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City H. H. H., and I apartment J., Daegu Special Metropolitan City. The value of each real property is KRW 78,480,80 in total, while the value of each real property is KRW 788,480,80,000 in total, the small property B’s debt to financial institutions, including the corporate bank, was in excess of its obligation amounting to KRW 2,928,822,00.”

Following the third page “each entry of Category A through 6 (including each number)” in the third column, “K replys to the order to submit financial transaction information by the court of first instance” shall be added.

2. The part of the Defendant’s reason for rejection of the Defendant’s bona fide objection is that the Defendant established a business chain that sells Korean cosmetics to Vietnam through mobile phone display in March 16, 2017 after retirement from office in Vietnam, and received investment of KRW 200 million from F in the process. However, the Defendant asserted that the investment amount was appropriated for the purchase price of each of the instant real estate, which is a site for use of KRW 160 million as M’s logistics warehouse.