1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiffs' claims against D are D's employees. With regard to D, the plaintiff A has a total of KRW 120,012,356, including unpaid benefits, and the plaintiff B has a total of KRW 88,984,745, including unpaid benefits.

B. On March 14, 2018, D entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the said sales contract on March 29, 2018 to the Defendant.

(2) Meanwhile, on the other hand, on January 15, 2007, prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the establishment registration of the first-class mortgage consisting of the maximum debt amount of 162,50,000 won, the debtor D, and the mortgagee E (hereinafter “E”), on May 25, 2009, the establishment registration of the first-class priority collective security right, which was formed with the debtor D, the mortgagee, the mortgagee, the F (hereinafter “F”), the maximum debt amount of 285,60,000 won on February 8, 2018, the third-class collective security right establishment registration, which was formed with the debtor D, the mortgagee, and the Credit Guarantee Fund, was completed, respectively, but each of the above establishment registration was revoked with the maximum debt amount of 300,00 won on the ground of partial renunciation or termination of the mortgage registration on March 29, 2018, and the debtor, the same maximum debt amount of 300,000 won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs asserted that they have claims against D, including the amount of unpaid benefits equivalent to KRW 208,97,101 in total. D sold and completed the registration of transfer of ownership to the defendant the real estate of this case, which is the only property under the status of over obligation on March 14, 2018. The sales contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, and is presumed to constitute D's intention to harm the debtor and the defendant's bad faith as the beneficiary.

On the other hand, regarding the instant real estate.