1. The plaintiff's appeal and the second preliminary claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2.No. 1. added in the trial.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, with the trade name of “E”, manufactured and supplied machinery to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) while operating the rash processing and mechanical manufacturer, and did not receive the price of KRW 219,739,000 until October 2004.

(b) An enterprise which has supplied machinery parts, etc. to F and has not been paid the price is 64, including the Plaintiff, and the price for goods which the said 64 enterprise has not received from F is 2,462,196,102.

C. The above 64 companies constituted a claim group for the recovery of claims, and the F agreed that the F will use the instant security for the manufacture of machinery and pay back obligations to the claim group with the proceeds of the payment of KRW 2,462,196,102 for the obligation of KRW 2,462,19,102 for the unpaid goods at F’s factory as a whole of the parts and materials in the F’s factory, intellectual property rights (patent number: a control tower with a spacker using G and Switter) as a security for the claim group (hereinafter “instant security”).

On November 16, 2004, H prepared a notarial deed of a contract for debt repayment of collateral security, including the above arrangement, with each of the debtor F, joint and several sureties J and K acting P.

E. Although K, the president of F, intended to establish and implement a debt repayment plan for the bond group, he/she did not follow F’s plan due to default and attachment, auction, etc. accordingly, he/she established L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”) on December 21, 2005, and decided to repay L’s operating profit to the bond group.

F. The claim group dispatched Defendant B to the administrator in order to supervise L’s operation, and Defendant B directly operated L with the consent of the claim group from September 2007.

G. On September 1, 2010, Defendant B established Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) with substantially identical L and its corporate form and content, and Defendant C, its children, became the representative director.