1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs added by this court among the lawsuits of this case.

1. This part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion, etc. sold the shares of K (the changed name from the first K Co., Ltd. to K; hereinafter “K”) to Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) prior to the commencement of their rehabilitation procedures on March 5, 2012, and donated proceeds from sale to K, thereby making it difficult to realize the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages to Defendant B, etc. constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiffs. Thus, the above agreement on the donation of shares between E, etc. and K constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiffs, and the said agreement on the donation of shares between E, etc. and K is revoked within the scope of the Plaintiffs’ preserved claim, and its restoration is the first and first, the Defendant K’s manager (hereinafter “Defendant K’s manager”)’s return of the shares purchase price to E, etc., and the first and second preliminary return of the shares purchase price to Defendant K’s manager, and seek confirmation of the right to claim the Plaintiffs’ claim for the return of the shares purchase price against Defendant K’s manager.

Article 3 Preliminaryly, E, etc.’s selling of shares to Defendant B constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiffs, and thus, the revocation of a share sales contract between E, etc. and Defendant B, along with its restoration to its original state, seek restitution of the amount equivalent to the above share purchase price to the Plaintiffs.

B. The Defendants’ assertion was concluded on March 5, 2012, and each of the above contracts was publicly announced on June 29, 2012, and the Plaintiffs knew of the grounds for the revocation of the instant share sales contract and the gift contract, which is a fraudulent act, around June 2012.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs are self-support of E, etc. at the time of the instant sales contract and donation contract through the investigation of the status of property of E, etc. while proceeding with the prior lawsuit for damages against E, etc.