1. Paragraph 1 of the order of the first instance judgment, including the plaintiff's claim expanded in the trial, shall be amended as follows:

1. With respect to this part of the facts recognized by the court of first instance, the reason why this court should explain is as follows: “attached Form 11” among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance; “Expert 1” in Attached Form 3 is as “Expert 1”; “Loan 15” is as “loan 15”; “The court of first instance” in Chapter 4 as “Court of the first instance”; “No. 1-12” in Chapter 4 as “No. 11” and “No. 41” as “No. 1 through 12, and No. 16 (including documentary evidence with a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply)”, except in the same part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in attached Form 1.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s claim for payment under the book supply contract of this case against C finalized by the above judgment was concluded before the instant sales contract was concluded, and thus, it constitutes a preserved claim for revocation of fraudulent act, the object of which is the instant sales contract, is the preserved claim.

B. In full view of the above facts and the purport of the entire argument, C is reasonable to deem that it did not own active properties other than the instant real estate at the time of the instant sales contract. There is no counter-proof as to this point. C’s total amount of small assets at the time is at least KRW 1,277,211,00,000 (i.e., the amount of loans owed to the Bank of Korea amounting to KRW 350,000,000 for Hana Bank’s loan obligation amounting to KRW 927,211,00,000) should be deemed to have exceeded the obligation exceeding the positive property. (ii) However, the obligor’s intent is a fraudulent act against the obligee, except under special circumstances.