1. The plaintiff's appeal and all appeals filed by the defendant B and C are dismissed.

2. The plaintiff, defendant B, C.

The court's explanation of this case by the court of the first instance as to this case is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the first instance judgment in addition to the part concerning the argument that Defendant B and C made in this court as stated in paragraph (2) below and paragraph (3) above, and thus, it is citing this case by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(Other reasons asserted in this court while appealed by the plaintiff, the defendant B, and the defendant C do not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if all evidence submitted in the first instance court and this court are examined, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B and the defendant C is accepted, and the decision of the first instance court dismissing the remaining claims against the defendants is justifiable). The part of the first instance court which was used for dismissal was "the time limit was set" in the first instance court Nos. 11, 12, and the above payment angle was "the plaintiff stated as the contractor and the plaintiff is stated as the contractor."

Part 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be subject to the following: "I am" in Part 7 of the judgment of first instance:

Even if the sale of the building of this case without the progress of the business in the ex post facto determination was deemed more beneficial, it cannot be evaluated as a fraudulent act solely on the ground that Defendant B, at the time of the legal act claiming a fraudulent act, had failed to perform the business despite being aware of such circumstances, and there was no circumstance that Defendant E, F, G, and H conducted an enterprise evaluation and feasibility evaluation for Defendant B in order to determine the possibility of the trust contract and loan of this case, and there was no circumstance that such an investment prediction is unreasonable." On the 15th judgment of the first instance court, the “Reimbursement” of Section 9 of the first instance judgment was followed as follows.

“The Plaintiff alleged to the effect that the repayment to a part of the obligor is a fraudulent act, but the obligee’s claim for the repayment of the obligation is a natural exercise of its right.