1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B shall be dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant C, Defendant D, and Defendant E all.

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff has a claim against Defendant B, who jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of Defendant G Co., Ltd. in relation to the instant public announcement tin Corporation, for the payment of the construction cost or the refund of the deposit for lease on deposit basis.

B. However, even though Defendant C and F knew that it would prejudice the Plaintiff’s claim and interest, they resell the instant public notice source to Defendant C and F without being registered, and again concluded a sales contract with Defendant C and F with regard to the instant public notice source. Defendant C and C introduced by Defendant C and C as the guarantor under the contract for the payment of the construction price, which were introduced by the F as the guarantor under the contract for the payment of the construction price, are connected to connection with connection, and it is confirmed that there was an agreement between the mother and the sales without confirming whether the contract for the lease on a deposit basis issued by the subcontractor and the Defendant C was prepared by the subcontractor in the real estate transaction.

C. Therefore, the unregistered resale agreement between Defendant B and Defendant C, and F on August 21, 2017 and the real estate sales agreement between Defendant D and Defendant E on August 21, 2017 should be revoked as a fraudulent act. As a result of the fraudulent act, the registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed in Defendant D and Defendant E’s name on September 14, 2017, should be revoked.

2. Determination

A. In the case of a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act by a creditor who made a judgment on the lawsuit against Defendant B along with the revocation of a fraudulent act, only the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser may be the defendant, and there is no standing for the debtor to be the defendant.

B. In light of the evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 23 as to the remaining Defendants’ claims or the evidence Nos. 18, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff has a claim for the construction cost or the return of the deposit for lease on a deposit basis as alleged by the Plaintiff against Defendant B, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have any right to be compensated by the cancellation of the sales contract between the remaining Defendants.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff.