1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the claim that was mainly changed shall be revoked.

2. The defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment by the court concerning this part of the basic facts is that the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “1. Basic Facts”) is the same as that of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited, including the abbreviation thereof, pursuant to

2. Summary of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. The payment in this case against the defendant in the main claim against AU is null and void for the following reasons: (i) and (ii); (ii) the plaintiffs, the creditors of AU, seek the implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration in this case due to the return of unjust enrichment to the defendant by subrogation

① The loan for consumption in this case and the payment in kind are null and void as they were concluded by a false agreement between the defendant and AU.

② The act of accord and satisfaction of the money lent by Nonparty BB, a third party, to Nonparty BB, a representative director of the AU, constitutes an act of occupational breach of trust, and the Defendant actively participated therein.

Therefore, the accord in this case is null and void as an anti-social legal act.

B. The conjunctive claim No. AU. transferred the store of this case to the Defendant in excess of the debt to the Defendant as a substitute payment, and the payment in this case constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiffs, a creditor of AU.

Therefore, along with the cancellation of the payment in substitutes in this case, the defendant seeks to implement the procedure for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration in this case as the restoration to original state.

3. Judgment as to the main claim

A. First, determination on the legitimacy of the exercise of the subrogation right by subrogation 1) The existence of the preserved claim is examined. According to the basic facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiffs are liable to pay AU the unpaid amount in attached Table 2 “AP” (in the case of Plaintiffs M, N, R, R, S, AK,N, and AP, the “approved unpaid amount” as stated in the relevant “amount” and its delay damages, and the “final scheduled date of payment of the final amount of profit” as indicated in attached Table 2 of August 22, 2016, respectively, and there is a claim equivalent to the pertinent amount in the “final profit” as indicated in the “scheduled date of payment of the final amount of profit” as indicated in attached Table 2 of the same Table.