1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following “2. height”, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. At the bottom of the 4 side to 6 lines up to 5 '5 's surface' shall be applied as follows:

2) In order to constitute a fraudulent act by an obligor’s insolvent debtor’s disposal of his/her assets, such act has to cause a decrease in the debtor’s total assets, and thus, the obligor’s small assets are more than active assets or the obligor’s excess of his/her obligations should be deepened. Such insolvency of the obligor should be determined at the time of the fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da47852, Oct. 29). The foregoing evidence, as well as the result of the order to submit documents to the G association of the first instance court, as well as the result of the appraiser AD’s appraisal and the overall purport of pleadings, it is acknowledged that the status of the Defendant company’s assets as of December 15, 2017 and December 19, 2017, as indicated in the table below, exceeded the negative assets as of December 19, 200 as of the date of each contract for establishing a mortgage.

However, the above reply does not seem to have calculated the remaining amount of loan obligations as of the time the respective contract to establish a mortgage was concluded. According to the evidence and the testimony of the witness AE and H at the trial, the defendant company obtained a loan of KRW 2.7 billion from G Union and repaid the existing loan obligations of KRW 2.2 billion to the above credit union and the existing investment principal of KRW 500 million to H, and then borrowed KRW 229,000,000 to H in order to secure this.