1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

As to the instant case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasoning of this court is as follows, in addition to adding the judgment of the court below 2. As to the assertion cited by the Defendants as the grounds for appeal, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the column of reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable

Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall include "2015 Taz. 16089" as "Seoul Eastern District Court 2015 Taz. 16089."

If the claim of Defendant B on December 5, 2014 of the instant case’s summary of Defendant B’s assertion as to the assertion that was added, is revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act, the dividend that Defendant B received shall be returned to the other distribution right holders who would have been able to receive more dividends than in the instant distribution procedure if the said assignment contract had not been entered into. The Plaintiff who did not demand a distribution in the instant distribution procedure satisfies the entire claim of other distribution right holders and remains surplus.

However, the creditors who demanded a distribution in the distribution procedure of this case did not have any surplus arising from the remaining claims that did not have been distributed in 4,760,948,597 won or remaining in 1,880,874,745 won, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot seek restitution against the Defendant B.

Judgment

Defendant B’s above assertion is rejected for the following reasons.

The instant lawsuit is a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the instant claim assignment contract against Defendant B, the beneficiary, because the Plaintiff’s obligee against Nonparty D and Defendant B, as the obligee against Nonparty D, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors of Nonparty D on December 5, 2014, and the instant claim constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors of Nonparty D. As such, Nonparty D, who is in excess of the debt, entered into the instant claim assignment contract with Defendant B on December 5, 2014 and transferred the instant claim to Defendant B, which is the sole property.