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 court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the allegation on retirement is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the corresponding part of the judgment, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

B. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this part of the establishment of a fraudulent act is that “5,196 square meters (+8,170 square meters + 3,727 square meters + 80 square meters + 1,389 square meters)” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is as follows: “5,196 square meters (=3,727 square meters + 80 square meters + 1,389 square meters)”; “265,341,496 square meters” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as “103,150,861 won” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

C. The court's explanation on this part of the scope of revocation of fraudulent act and the method of restitution is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where "the plaintiff may revoke fraudulent act only within the extent of the plaintiff's secured claim amount among the sales contract for the land stated in the annexed Table No. 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance," "the plaintiff may revoke fraudulent act only within the extent of the plaintiff's secured claim amount among the sales contract for the land stated in the annexed Table No. 11 and No. 5 of the annexed Table No. 1 of the sales contract of this case, within the limit of the plaintiff's secured claim amount." Thus, it is consistent with the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance

The judgment of the defendant as to the defendant's assertion 1 is to deposit KRW 1,077, 233,387 for the obligees, including the plaintiff, after being served with the provisional seizure, seizure, and collection order as to the claim for the purchase price of this case by the obligees A including the plaintiff, for the obligees who were seized.