1. The part against Plaintiff B among the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff B's claim is all dismissed.

3. The defendant.

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the reasoning for this part of the judgment of the first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance; and (b) the reasoning for this Court’s explanation is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article

Part 3, in Part 12, “Defendant C” shall be deemed to be “Codefendant C of the first instance trial (hereinafter referred to as “C”), and all of “Defendant C” shall be deemed to be “C”.

Part 3: Defendant D’s “Defendant D” in Part 16 is “Co-Defendant D of the first instance trial (hereinafter referred to as “D”) and Defendant D’s “Defendant D” are written in all “D”.

Part 3, part 17 "Defendant E" was written by "Co-Defendant E of the first instance trial (hereinafter referred to as "E"), and all of "Defendant E" were written by "E".

Part 3, "representative interest" in Part 18 shall be added to "in-house director interest".

Part 5, 3, "U.S. District Court" shall be added to "U.S. District Court" as "U.S. District Court."

Part 5, paragraphs 7 through 11 shall be cut down as follows:

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 14 through 17 (including each number, if any), and the summary of the plaintiffs' assertion in the purport of the whole argument of the parties concerned, C is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for tort from July 2015 to February 2016 (hereinafter "Plaintiff Company").

(1) As from August 10, 205, while the Plaintiff was liable for 907,356,000 won and damages for delay, and 60,000 won and damages for delay against Plaintiff B.

8. Until November, each of the instant real estate, the sole property of which is one’s own property, has resulted in the shortage of responsible property by gratuitously donating it to the Defendant, who is one’s own wife. As such, each of the instant gift contracts should be revoked as a fraudulent act

Therefore, the Plaintiffs seek to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership of each of the instant real estate as the restoration of the original property following the revocation of fraudulent act against the Defendant.

The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is about each of the instant real estate.