1. The appeal by Defendant C Co., Ltd is dismissed.

2. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant D is revoked.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the case where the judgment of the first instance was accepted as follows. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant A”) in Part 7 of Part 3 is referred to as “Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as “A”) in the first instance trial, and both Defendant A and the “Defendant A” are referred to as “A”.

(b) Part 3, part 15, “Defendant B” in Part 15 is “Codefendant B of the first instance trial (hereinafter “B”), and both Defendant B and the “Defendant B” are written in both “B”.

(c) The “each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 18 through 19” (hereinafter referred to as “attached Form 2”) shall be added to the following:

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. 1) The establishment of a preserved claim requires that, in principle, a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation was created prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, there is a high probability that the claim has already been established at the time of such fraudulent act, and that the claim should be established in the near future based on such legal relationship. In the near future, where a claim has been created due to its real feasibility in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da42957, Nov. 8, 2002) (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da42957, Nov. 8, 2002).