The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court, the lower court determined that the instant trust agreement cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act, on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant trust agreement resulted in a substantial decrease in the property held by Company B (hereinafter “B”) or a shortage of joint security due to the instant trust agreement, and that B entered into the instant loan agreement with the creditor financial institutions, and that the instant loan agreement was the best way to acquire the loan and continue the instant business, thereby acquiring the loan therefrom, and that it was inevitable to deem that the instant trust agreement constituted a fraudulent act.

Examining the relevant legal principles and the evidence admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to piracy, intent of piracy, or beneficial rights or trust property formed under a trust contract.

2. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.