1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited as it is by the main text of

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Unlike a credit guarantee accident that is excluded from a credit guarantee accident and treated as having not caused a credit guarantee accident, an inadequate reservation process recognizes the occurrence of a credit guarantee accident and the aggravation of the debtor’s credit status, but expects the normal settlement of accounts to be abnormal, and reserves only poor treatment, and on May 23, 2012, Co-Defendant A corporation of the first instance trial (hereinafter “A”).

(2) As a result of the occurrence of a bad cause, the Plaintiff: (a) provisionally attached each real estate listed in the separate sheet on August 10, 2010, and (b) disposed of defective reservation on September 11, 2012; (c) the occurrence of a credit guarantee accident and prior right to reimbursement on May 23, 2012 or August 10, 2010; and (d) on April 22, 2013, the right to reimbursement was created after the occurrence of the prior right to reimbursement; (b) the contract and the promise to purchase and sell the instant mortgage was made under high probability that the prior right to reimbursement was created in the near future at the time of the contract and the promise to purchase and sell the instant mortgage; and (c) the Plaintiff’s prior right to reimbursement and the right to reimbursement can be the preserved right of obligee’s creditor’s creditor’s creditor’s creditor’s creditor’s creditor’s creditor’s creditor’s creditor’s creditor’s creditor’s creditor’s creditor’s creditor’s creditor’s creditor’s creditor’s right to reimbursement.

Therefore, the contract and the promise to purchase and sell the instant mortgage constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff.