1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment, except for partial revision as follows.

In the end of the second half of the judgment of the court of first instance, “(the taxation claims of this case)” shall be added to “the taxation claims of 1 or 8 listed below”.

The "Plaintiff's taxation claim" and the "Plaintiff's above taxation claim" in the 2nd at the bottom of the 3th judgment of the first instance court and the 4th, 1, and 2nd shall be amended to the "instant taxation claim".

In four pages of the decision of the first instance court, "for the security of existing claims" shall be deleted.

The first instance court's decision 4th 11th 1th 2007 to 2013 read "B lent all KRW 500 million to B" to "a total of KRW 40 million on July 1, 2014 and KRW 360 million on October 17, 2014 to lend new funds of KRW 400 million."

Part 1 of the judgment of the first instance court from 5 pages 1 to 11 of the same page shall be amended as follows:

Unless there exist special circumstances, an obligor’s act of offering real estate owned by him/her in excess of debt security to any of the creditors constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors. However, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the obligor’s act of creation of security interest does not constitute a fraudulent act if it is the best way for the obligor to continue his/her business by financing funds in a situation where it is difficult to continue his/her business due to financing, and if it is inevitable to provide certain creditors with real estate as security and obtain additional financing from them, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da5015, May 8, 2001). However, the obligor’s act of creation of security interest does not constitute a fraudulent act by borrowing a total of KRW 40 million from the Defendant on July 14, 2014, KRW 3600,000,000 from October 17, 2014.