1. The plaintiff's appeal and the selective claim against the defendant B added by this court are all dismissed.

2. Appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as follows. The plaintiff's selective claims added by this court are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment identical with that of paragraph 3. Thus, the court's explanation of this case shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(The grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff do not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance trial, and the fact-finding and determination in the first instance court are deemed legitimate, considering all additional arguments and evidence added by this court). 2. On February 8, 201, the part of the first instance judgment, which was concluded on the ground of “10.10” as “ January 10, 2012”; and the part of the first instance judgment, “the notice of credit transfer” as “the contract for credit transfer” in the same 20th part, respectively.

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, from 13 pages 18 to 16 pages 13, "judgments on the revocation of fraudulent act and the claim for restitution," shall be as follows:

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff held a claim for damages amounting to KRW 4.5 billion against Defendant B due to nonperformance or tort, or a claim for damages amounting to KRW 700 million based on a final and conclusive payment order (Seoul District Court Decision 2008Da2391) and damages for delay thereof. (2) Defendant B entered into a title trust agreement with Defendant C on September 7, 2012 and entered the Defendant C into a title trust agreement with Defendant C on January 9, 2015 (1,800 shares) and entered the Defendant C as a shareholder (13,200 shares) with January 9, 2015, and entered the shares (15,00 shares, hereinafter “instant shares”) listed in the attached list of the first instance judgment, the sole active property, in which the Plaintiff acquired the shares (15,00 shares, hereinafter “instant shares”).

3) Accordingly, each of the shares held by Defendant B and Defendant C as of September 7, 2012 and January 9, 2015 should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and Defendant D should implement the transfer procedure under the name of Defendant B with respect to the shares of this case due to its restitution to its original state. (b) Determination 1).