1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

(1) B between Defendant Han forest Construction Co., Ltd. and Defendant Han forest Construction Co.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (section 3, 8, 4, and 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance) except where the facts of recognition are written or added as follows. Thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the third part of the judgment of the first instance, "16.7 billion won" in the 16th part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed " approximately 16.7 billion won".

B. On April 10, 2015, part 4 of the first instance judgment, the supplementary intervenor “A,” the supplementary intervenor “B,” and the supplementary intervenor “B,” and the supplementary intervenor for Korea Forest Construction (hereinafter “Defendant supplementary intervenor”), respectively, shall be dismissed on April 10, 2015.

C. On No. 4 of the first instance judgment, “BBA No. 13” is added to the 17th [based grounds for recognition].

2. Determination as to the claim for the construction of primary defendant Han-gu Construction

A. The court's explanation on this part of the cited judgment of the court of first instance

In addition, it is necessary to determine the argument that the plaintiff made in the trial as stated in the paragraph.

Except as added in paragraph (1), the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (section 4, 19, 7, and 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, it is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article

B. (1) On the 5th page of the first instance judgment, the part written or added is presumed to be “presumed” and the following is added:

"In this case, the defendant Han Dog Construction sold more than the appropriate price listed in the separate sheet, and some creditors are expected to repay or repay the sale price, so the acquisition price of this case does not constitute a fraudulent act. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the defendant Han Dog Construction itself is insufficient to recognize that B already sold the articles listed in the separate sheet to the defendant Han Dog Construction in order to appropriate for the legitimate repayment to some creditors.