1. The plaintiff's appeal and the second preliminary claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Facts of recognition

The court's reasoning concerning this part is as follows: "a contract to receive a subcontract" under Section 3, Section 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "a contract to receive a lump sum subcontract"; Section 4, Section 10-11 of the judgment of first instance is "each of the statements in Sections 1 through 5, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of this court, and the Court Administration's fact-finding results on the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of the first instance court, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of the first instance court, and the Court Administration's office's fact-finding results on the part corresponding to the judgment of the court of first instance except for the fact-finding results on the budget of the party."

The summary of the cause of the claim is that the Cheongia Construction Industry issued a false promissory note in collusion with the Defendant for the purpose of evading compulsory execution, and there is no claim against the Defendant’s Cheongia Construction Industry. The liability for the Cheongia Construction Industry, which has already been in excess of the obligation, is a fraudulent act that further deepens the debtor’s insolvency.

In addition, there are claims of the Defendant arising from the issuance of the Promissory Notes in this case

Even if the Cheonga Construction Industry, in excess of the debt, concluded a debt repayment contract as shown in the attached Table with the defendant for the purpose that only the defendant among the creditors is given preferential repayment, and prepared and executed an executory notarial deed (hereinafter “instant debt repayment contract”) constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the interests of other general creditors.

Therefore, within the scope of KRW 2,50,000 of the Plaintiff’s claim amount, the issuance of the Promissory Notes in this case, which is a false bond, should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the restoration to the original state by striking KRW 22,50,000 out of the dividend amount against the Defendant, shall be distributed to the Plaintiff.