1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

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

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases of dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

(a) Nos. 1 and 2 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be written with “Nos. 1 through 6” in Section 8 of the judgment of the first instance.

(b) On the 6th anniversary of the judgment of the first instance court, the phrase “see the judgment” in Part 10 shall be followed as follows:

C. The Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da5643 Decided July 18, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da5643, Jul. 18, 2013). The plaintiffs asserted that the above decisions are related to whether the act of transferring real estate already mortgaged constitutes a fraudulent act, and that the “an act of creating additional right to collateral security” cannot be applied to the issue of “an act of creating additional right to collateral security” rather than the “transfer act” as in the instant case. However, since real estate already in excess of the value of the secured claim is not included in the property provided to the common creditors’ joint security, the act of disposing of the real estate is deemed not to constitute a fraudulent act. In this case, if the act of establishing additional right to collateral security, which is weak disposal, naturally, does not constitute a fraudulent act. Thus, the plaintiffs’ above assertion cannot be accepted.

C. Of the 8th decision of the first instance court, the judgment on the plaintiffs' arguments in the first instance is added as follows between the 11th decision and the 12th decision (the conclusion of April).

C."Food".

In addition, the plaintiffs asserts that since the mortgage contract of this case is merely a false declaration of agreement concluded by the debtor as a means to acquire the surplus of auction, the distribution schedule based thereon should be revised.

However, Gap's 1 to 1.