1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is the same as that of the first instance judgment, except for the following cases, and thus, the same is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. On April 25, 2016, part 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance: (a) “Fastly, the Defendant was subject to the final claim transfer contract with the Daegu District Court No. 69762, Apr. 28, 2016, which was received on April 28, 2016, on the ground of the final claim transfer contract; (b) transferred the final claim against D to the Defendant on April 25, 2016; and (c) on April 28, 2016, the Defendant was subject to the final claim transfer contract.”

B. On the 3rd page of the first instance judgment, the first instance judgment stated that “The Defendant shall not be deemed to have committed a fraudulent act, and the Defendant shall be deemed to have no intention of deception.”

C. According to the first instance judgment No. 4, 9 of the first instance judgment, “A transfer of the right to collateral security in this case by reason of a conclusive claim transfer contract against the Defendant can be deemed to have been made by accord and satisfaction with respect to part of the loan obligation against the Defendant. As the transferred collateral value is the maximum amount of KRW 27 million, the maximum amount of the loan obligation against the Defendant, and the debt against the Defendant is assessed to have been extinguished by the transfer of the right to collateral and the transfer of the right to collateral security within the same amount. Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, the above act is not deemed to have been a fraudulent act causing the reduction of B’s property,” the Defendant had the remaining loan obligation against B at the time of entering into the instant assignment contract, and B paid a certain amount monthly interest to the Defendant from March 31, 2016, and the maximum amount of debt transferred under the instant assignment contract is merely 27 million won, and thus, compared with the remainder of the loan obligation of the Defendant.