1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim Nos. 2 and 3 added in the trial are all dismissed.

2.In addition, a new trial shall be added.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: “1. Basic Facts in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance are as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to the use of “as of November 1, 201,” “as of November 201,” the second part of the judgment of the first instance as “as of November 201.”

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. On June 17, 2011, the Defendant asserted by the Plaintiff, in collusion with C on June 17, 201, committed a tort that C lends the name of the instant house to C for the purpose of evading the Plaintiff’s obligations against the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages KRW 47 million incurred to the Plaintiff.

B. According to the facts established prior to the determination, in light of the fact that the Defendant appears to have paid the lease deposit to D, a lessor who lent money from H, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant conspired with C to lend the name of the instant house to C for the purpose of evading the Plaintiff’s obligation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the first preliminary claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) transferred the instant house to the Defendant without compensation on June 17, 201 in excess of the obligation, which constitutes a fraudulent act that causes damage to the obligee of C. The Defendant is obligated to re-transfer the frequency of the instant house to C as restitution. Since the present frequency of the instant house has been closed, making it impossible to return its original property impossible, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said amount up to KRW 47 million for the Plaintiff’s claim against C. 2) The Defendant’s principal safety defense defense against the instant lawsuit against the Defendant around May 28, 2014, and around June 17, 2011, the fact that the transfer contract between the Defendant and C and the said transfer contract constituted a fraudulent act.

Therefore, it is true.