1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2.(a)

The real estate stated in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the attached Table between the defendant A and C.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the basic facts is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

“E has caused a guarantee accident, such as the refusal of payment of a promissory note delivered to the Korea Shipping Association from January 16, 2012 to January 31, 2012,” and “E and D have modified “A Promissory note delivered to the Korea Shipping Association from January 16, 2012 to January 31, 2012,” respectively, to the effect that “E and D shall have caused a guarantee accident that is refused to pay from January 16, 2012 to January 31, 2012,” respectively.

2. Determination:

A. 1) The establishment of a preserved claim requires that, in principle, a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation was created prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, there is a high probability as to the establishment of a claim at the time of the fraudulent act, which is based on the existing legal relationship in the near future, and that the claim is established in the near future. In the near future, the probability of realizing the claim in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim by the obligee’s right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da8687, Oct. 10, 1997) (see, e.g., evidence 15, evidence 16, evidence 17-1, evidence 17-2, evidence 2, and evidence 3, evidence 1, 2, and evidence 4, and evidence 1, 3, and evidence 1, 201 and evidence 1, evidence 2, 201.

(1) E shall be March 1, 2010 and