1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The Plaintiffs, which caused the claim, lent KRW 200 million at the request of I in around 2011, but the said company did not repay the loan even after the due date has expired.

The Plaintiffs and I, after reducing the above loan amounting to KRW 177 million, set the repayment date as October 16, 2013, set out a notarial deed of debt repayment contract at the Daegu-do Joint Law Office as 658, 2013.

I, in collusion with Defendant B for the purpose of evading compulsory execution by the Plaintiffs, pretended to have concluded a trade reservation on November 23, 2012 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 7, and completed the provisional registration of Defendant B’s right to claim ownership transfer on April 10, 2013. The remaining Defendants knew of the aforementioned circumstances and completed the registration of transfer of ownership transfer right to the said real estate. The aforementioned acts constitute fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiffs, who are general creditors of I.

Since the plaintiffs exercise their right of revocation against the defendants, the defendants are obligated to cancel their provisional registration and their transfer registration with respect to each real estate listed in attached Tables 1 through 7 to the plaintiff.

2. We examine whether the Plaintiffs have the preserved claim against the Defendants, which is entitled to exercise the obligee’s right of revocation.

According to Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiffs can recognize the fact that the plaintiff was prepared and issued with a notarial deed of debt repayment contract, which was written as of October 16, 2013, by the J which represented I at the Daegu High Joint Law Office on July 16, 2013, which was written as of KRW 177 million, jointly and severally liable I, the representative director of J and I, K and I, and the notarial deed of debt repayment contract, which was written as of October 16, 2013.

However, in full view of the facts stated in the above notarial deed as of July 16, 2013 and the fact that the plaintiffs paid KRW 200 million to I, the plaintiffs are prior to the date of preparation of the above notarial deed.