1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, and the part against the defendant among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition under paragraph (2) of the judgment on the assertion emphasized by the plaintiff in this court

(The main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). The defendant A (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant A") shall be used as the "Co-Defendant A corporation of the first instance (hereinafter referred to as the "A")" and all "Defendant A" shall be used as "A".

Defendant B shall be put into “B” all of the three-party 7 behaviors in the judgment of the first instance and below.

The fourth 12-party 12-party 1 in the judgment of the first instance and the lower “Defendant C” shall be applied to all “Defendant”.

The 7th day of the first instance judgment "this court" shall be used as "the first instance court", and the "comprehensive pages" of the same 8th day shall be used as "comprehensive viewing".

In the first instance judgment, the 7th 11th 11th am " was "(the respective indemnity obligation against the plaintiff and the Credit Guarantee Fund was not actually incurred at the time of the conclusion of the instant mortgage agreement, but there had already been a legal relationship which forms the basis of the establishment of the instant obligation, and there was a high probability that the said obligation was incurred in the near future, and the said probability was actually realized, including the small property)."

2. Additional determination

A. Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion that the establishment of the instant mortgage contract was aimed at promoting A’s business continuously, since at the time there was no possibility of economic rehabilitation, it cannot be deemed as the best method by which A and B had the ability to repay obligations, and thus, it constitutes a fraudulent act.

B. As seen earlier, the Defendant was liable for the amount of KRW 14 billion following the conclusion of the instant mortgage contract at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract. According to the evidence revealed earlier, following the conclusion of the instant contract, the lower court’s determination on September 2, 2017, which was subsequent to the conclusion of the instant contract.