1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim added by this court is dismissed.

3...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as follows, except where the defendant makes a decision on the assertion and the conjunctive claim that the defendant raised additionally in the court of first instance as to this case, and the reasoning of the judgment is stated in the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with

(It is reasonable to find facts and make decisions in the first instance even considering the materials added by the court).

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion of invalidity of false representation of conspiracy (1) is that even if the Defendant received shares 4,000 shares on April 4, 2013, which were the birth from the network D, it is null and void by a false representation of conspiracy to evade debts, and that the Defendant, who succeeded to the shares of the deceased after the fact, did not exercise shareholder rights based on the shares, simply approve inheritance. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the obligation of the network D was inherited.

(2) In light of the overall purport of the pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the fact that the network D donated 3,000 shares to the Defendant on April 4, 2013, which is the birth date, is recognized, but further, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the network donated 1,00 shares on April 4, 201, in addition to the above shares subject to the gift, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is judged as a false representation of the above 3,00 stock donation and a claim for revocation of fraudulent act.

As to whether the net D’s donation of 3,00 shares before the birth to the Defendant becomes null and void due to a false declaration of conspiracy, the Defendant continued to maintain the status of representative director even after the gift of shares, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff and the construction cost agreed on the issue of the company even after the donation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion.