1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The action against Defendant E and the action against Defendant C expanded at the trial.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 22, 2009, the Seoul Central District Court (2008Gahap84583) filed a lawsuit against F to order F to pay 550,000,000 won and its delay damages. The above judgment was finalized on February 19, 2009.

on August 26, 2009, Luxembourg transferred 379,584,000 won and its delay damages to Plaintiff A, and the remainder of 170,416,000 won and its delay damages to Plaintiff B, among the claims with principal and interest on the above final judgment.

B. On September 12, 2008, the provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership was completed on September 11, 2008 on the apartment of this case for which the transfer of ownership was completed under the name of F. The provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership was completed on September 11, 2008.

B. On June 8, 2010, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 4, 2010 on the apartment of this case under Defendant C’s name, and on June 3, 2010, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 4, 2010.

Consolidatedly, G purchased the above apartment on December 18, 2012 from Defendant C and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 27, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, Eul No. 11, 12, 13, and 19, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The primary claim (i) F, the debtor against the plaintiffs, entered into the instant contract with the defendant C in excess of his/her obligation, and immediately Defendant D entered into a lease agreement with the defendant C on the instant apartment as KRW 400,000,000 with respect to the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). This is that F transfers KRW 400,000,000 out of the sales price claim against the defendant C to the defendant D.

D. Accordingly, F’s transfer of the above sales price claim to Defendant D constitutes a fraudulent act and thus, F’s cancellation of the above assignment of claims within the limit of KRW 300,000,000 and payment of KRW 300,000 as compensation for value.