1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The scope of the adjudication in this Court filed a claim against the Defendant B of the first instance trial for the revocation of the fraudulent act and restitution to its original state. This part was separate and finalized as the Plaintiff did not file an appeal after having been sentenced to the entire invalidation in the first instance trial

The plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant C for the revocation of the fraudulent act and restitution of the original state regarding the real estate stated in the attached list No. 3, but the court of first instance was sentenced to the full loss and did not file an appeal, which was excluded from the scope of the original trial.

2. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the entry of the first instance court's decision, except for the second instance court's decision as stated below 2. Thus, the court's explanation of this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. A new part of the judgment of the first instance; and

(a) At the end of the sixthth of the judgment of the first instance, three to eleven parallels 7 shall be followed as follows:

B. As to Defendant A’s assertion, if the contract for sale in lots between Defendant A and Korea is cancelled, Defendant A asserts that there is no reason to seek reimbursement from Defendant A, since the Plaintiff can receive preferential payment from the pre-paid sale price in accordance with the Korea Land Trust and the Business Agreement concluded with New Master Construction.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the sales contract between Defendant A and the Korea Land Trust has been cancelled, and the loan business agreement entered into between the agricultural cooperative and the new comprehensive construction, etc. with the agricultural cooperative is to secure the loan claims against Defendant A, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the exercise of the Plaintiff’s right to indemnity against the Defendant A who performed the guaranteed obligation against the agricultural cooperative under the credit guarantee agreement of this case is limited. Thus, this part of the allegation by the Defendant A cannot be accepted.

B. On March 6, 2013, Defendant C’s first instance judgment Nos. 11, 13 [3] of Defendant C’s reservation to trade on March 6, 2013] are re-written as follows.3) Defendant C’s June 2013.