1. The plaintiff shall dismiss the incidental appeal.

2. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The appeal costs are the defendant.

1. Whether the Plaintiff’s incidental appeal is lawful or not, the first instance court filed a claim for the revocation of a fraudulent act and the restoration to its original state by using the claim for the return of the lease deposit against C as the preserved claim, and filed a preliminary appeal at the trial, and filed a claim for revocation of a fraudulent act and the restoration to its original state by subrogation of unjust enrichment or damage claim against D C.

The addition or exchange of a claim that a creditor intends to preserve while claiming revocation of a fraudulent act is merely a modification of the argument about the method of attack with the reason of revocation of the fraudulent act, and it does not change the subject matter of the lawsuit or the claim itself. Therefore, it cannot be said that the lawsuit is changed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da13532 Decided May 27, 2003, etc.). In other words, the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of the lease deposit against C as the preserved claim. However, the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of the lease deposit against C is made the preserved claim against D’s unjust enrichment or the preserved claim against D, but the substance is to seek the revocation of the fraudulent act. However, each of the above claims is not a preliminary consolidation.

If the plaintiff's incidental appeal is dismissed, it seems that the plaintiff's incidental appeal is to seek a decision on the conjunctive cause of claim.

This is the subject of a trial as a means of attack and defense against a claim for revocation of a fraudulent act in the trial of the party. Ultimately, the plaintiff's incidental appeal is merely seeking a judgment of the same contents as that cited in the judgment of the court of first instance,

2. The Defendant’s grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and there is no other evidence submitted by the Defendant to this court.

In accordance with the evidence submitted by the first instance court, the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court shall be recognized as legitimate.

Therefore, the court's explanation on the instant case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The plaintiff.