All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

A creditor’s right to demand repayment of an obligation, as a natural exercise of his/her right, shall not be interfered with on the ground that there exist other creditors, and an obligor shall not refuse to perform his/her obligation on the ground that there exist other creditors. Thus, in cases where the obligor issued a promissory note to repay the existing obligation to the obligee and prepared a notarial deed stating the purport of accepting compulsory execution upon the obligee’s request, which requires an execution title in an execution procedure for the obligor’s property to be equally distributed, barring any special circumstance to deem that such an act does not differ from the actual transfer of his/her liability property to a specific obligee, it cannot be deemed a fraudulent act detrimental to

(2) The lower court determined that each of the instant promissory notes issued to the Defendants for the repayment of obligations arising from the supply of human resources, and each of the instant authentic deeds issued by B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Co., Ltd.”) was issued to the Defendants for the repayment of obligations due to the supply of human resources, and accordingly, ordered the Defendants to seize and seize claims based on the fact that the Defendants received an order for seizure and assignment of claims, etc., it is difficult to find that the non-party Co., Ltd. was in a de facto situation to deem that it was not different from the transfer of the liability property by reducing the active property of the non-party Co., Ltd. or increasing the negative property, and thus, it is difficult to find that the non-party Co., Ltd. issued each of the instant promissory notes to the Defendants and prepared each of the instant authentic deeds.