1. Defendant B’s 88,500,000 won and the interest rate of 15% per annum from October 30, 2015 to the date of full payment.

The grounds for the Defendant B’s claim are as shown in the attached Form.

Since the judgment by service by public notice is a judgment by public notice, only the matters necessary to specify the reasons for the judgment by public notice pursuant to Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act are briefly indicated. The fact-finding in the reply of each financial transaction information sent by public notice of the defendant C and D may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: the fact-finding results of this court on the defendant C and D's establishment of the creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor, Nonghyup

According to the above facts of recognition, a sales contract concluded between Defendant B and Defendant C on July 1, 2014 with respect to the real estate listed in the Attachment No. 1, and a sales contract and a sales contract concluded between Defendant B and Defendant D on July 31, 2014 with respect to the real estate listed in the Attachment No. 2 constitutes an act detrimental to the creditor, respectively.

(Article 406(1) main text of the Civil Act). We examine Defendant C’s assertion as to Defendant C’s defense, and examine it with the purport that the Defendant had been unaware of, at the time of July 1, 2014, to the effect that the Defendant had been unaware of, that it would prejudice B’s creditors due to such juristic act.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion only with the descriptions of Eul-Na 1 or Eul-7 evidence, and there is no other proof of the defendant.

Defendant C’s defense is without merit.

According to the reasoning of the judgment on Defendant D’s defense, each of the evidence Nos. 1-1 through B(16) (including the serial numbers) can be acknowledged that Defendant D was unaware of the failure to harm B’s creditors due to such a juristic act at the time of July 31, 2014, and there was no counter-proof by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, Article 406(1) of the Civil Code is stipulated.