1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate even if the defendant's testimony is not sufficient to recognize the defendant's good faith.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is that the “new establishment” in the 7th 9th 9th e.g., the “establishment” in the 7th e.g., the “establishment” in the 7th e.g., the “establishment” in the 7th e.g., the Defendant’s new assertion in this court is identical to the

2. Judgment on the defendant's additional assertion

A. Since a provisional re-lease agreement entered into between the Defendant’s assertion and D is a contract that generates an uncertain number of obligations for rent according to the future supply of temporary materials, C’s joint and several liability with respect to D bears the character of the obligations of an uncertain number of obligations.

Thus, D and C should have specified the maximum amount of the collateral guaranteed in writing at the time of the joint and several liability in accordance with Article 428-3(1) of the Civil Code, but they did not specify the maximum amount of the temporary re-lease contract. Thus, the joint and several liability contract concluded between the Plaintiff and C is invalid in accordance with Article 428-3(2

Therefore, there is no preserved claim against C in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act in this case.

B. 1) The beneficiary or subsequent purchaser, the other party to the revocation suit, who filed a lawsuit against the debtor and the judgment in favor of the creditor becomes final and conclusive, cannot contest the existence or scope of the obligee’s claim confirmed as such (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da19572, Jul. 11, 2003). 2) According to the evidence No. 37, the Plaintiff filed a claim suit against C for temporary rent based on a joint and several surety agreement with the Daejeon District Court as the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court 2017Da3316.