1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance, except where the court added the judgment of the defendant as to the defendant’s assertion in this case to the following two cases. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant received the refund claim of the lease deposit of this case in lieu of the repayment of the loan claim of H amounting to KRW 230 million,00,000,000,000,000,000.

B. In a case where the obligor’s property is insufficient to fully repay the obligor’s obligation, if the obligor provided the obligor’s property as payment in kind or as a collateral to a certain obligee, barring any special circumstance, it would harm the interests of other obligees, and thus, constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other obligees, and the same applies even if the obligor’s property provided as payment in kind or as a collateral is not the obligor’

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s payment of the lease deposit of this case to the Defendant in excess of the amount of KRW 490 million on July 12, 2007 (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da18218, Jul. 12, 2007). The Defendant’s payment of the lease deposit of this case to the Defendant would constitute a fraudulent act.

Supreme Court Decision 2000Da66034 Decided April 10, 2001 alleged by the defendant is not appropriate to invoke the case as it is, unlike the case in this case.

This part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. The decision of the first instance court that accepted the claim of this case by the plaintiffs is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.