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 of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the alteration of part of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On the 4th decision of the first instance court, the following contents are added to the following 10th decision (hereinafter referred to as the "3. conclusion"), and the defendant asserts that it is unfair to return the entire amount equivalent to the claim for return of lease deposit acquired by the defendant without consideration, even though the defendant is also a legitimate creditor against the debtor, inasmuch as the defendant is also a legitimate creditor against the debtor, the amount equivalent to the claim for return of lease deposit should be returned to the beneficiary or a subsequent purchaser for all creditors, in order to preserve the debtor's property, which is a joint security of the debtor's property. However, the right of revocation is a system that revokes the fraudulent act between the debtor and the beneficiary and the beneficiary in order to preserve the debtor's property, and it is against the purpose of the system because it would result in protecting the beneficiary who received repayment against the debtor's own claim and disregarding other creditors' interests. Therefore, the defendant's claim for return of the distributed amount cannot be asserted to the revoked creditor on the ground that the beneficiary is one of the creditors whose revocation of fraudulent act, or the beneficiary's claim for distribution amount equivalent to the above 2014.

2. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim is reasonable.