All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal against Defendant A

(a) An act of a debtor in excess of his/her obligation to offer real estate owned by him/her to any one of the creditors as collateral for claims constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, except in extenuating circumstances;

(3) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to property disposal, etc., and by misapprehending the legal principles as to property disposal, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to property disposal, etc., as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to property disposal, etc., as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Furthermore, even if the above act of purchasing real estate and the act of offering collateral were conducted in sequential order within a short time without all the same time, barring special circumstances, it does not mean that there was an increase or decrease in the existing creditors' joint collateral through the series of acts, and thus, it does not constitute a fraudulent act by separating only the act of offering collateral (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Da1403, May 25, 1982; 2008Da95663, Apr. 23, 2009).

The judgment below

The reasons and records reveal the following facts.

1) The sectional owners, including Defendant A, who participated in the instant reconstruction project, jointly with the construction company, trust company, etc., C (hereinafter “C”).

A. A new project implementer of the reconstruction project of this case is recognized as a new project implementer, and the existing trust company.