1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. E is a company engaged in the publication and printing of child books, and Plaintiff A is F, Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff C is a person operating H.

B. On August 5, 2011, E entered into a contract for transfer of the right of publication (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”) with the content that the right of publication is transferred in KRW 500 million to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs asserted that E bears the obligation to pay the goods to the plaintiffs, but they concluded a false transfer contract of this case without receiving the transfer price in collusion with the defendant in order to avoid compulsory execution, etc. on the right of publication of this case. ② Even if the legitimate transfer price for household affairs was paid, the transfer contract of this case, the only property of E, transferred the right of publication of this case to salt prices, and deepens the liability exceeding the amount of money easily used for consumption. Thus, the transfer contract of this case, claiming that the transfer contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, is revoked

As to this, the Defendant: (a) the disposition of the right of publication of this case was made at a reasonable price; (b) the disposal price was used by E in order to repay the obligation to the customer; (c) the fact of the transfer was registered after the transfer contract of this case; and (d) the Defendant actually sold the books of this case from around 2011, and thus, the transfer contract of this case cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act; and (b) as E had at least one billion won other publication rights other than the right of this case at the time of the conclusion of the transfer contract of this case, it cannot be deemed that E was the sole property of the right of publication of this case or that the transfer contract of this case was in excess of

3. Determination

A. First of all, Plaintiff C’s claim against the existence of the preserved claim shall be subject to health care for the existence of the preserved claim, and even according to Plaintiff C’s claim, Plaintiff C shall be subject to the obligation from Plaintiff C.