1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows. 3.B.

(3) The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a case in which a claim (Articles 13 through 14) is used as follows. Thus, it shall be quoted as it is pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

According to the above legal doctrine, the Plaintiff asserts that the act of issuing the Promissory Notes also constitutes a fraudulent act in accordance with the above judgment, since the factual relations of the Supreme Court Decision No. 2009Da33884 Decided April 29, 2010 are similar to this case. The above Supreme Court ruling states, “In case where an insolvent debtor prepares a notarial deed stating the purport of accepting compulsory execution with respect to the existing obligation for the purpose of having a specific creditor, who is in a financial condition, obtain a seizure and collection order with respect to the obligation of the debtor, and the obligee obtains a seizure and collection order with respect to the obligation of the debtor, the obligee and the obligor’s agreement which caused preparation of such notarial deed constitute a so-called repayment contract, which is a separate contract for the performance of the existing obligation, and thus constitutes a fraudulent act by impairing the interests of other general creditors, since the obligor who was in a financial condition, was subject to the provisional seizure of his own property from the non-party, and upon his request, notified the Defendant, who was the sole creditor’s deposit claim, and accepted a 3rd deposit claim.