1. The Plaintiff’s claim against C, D, and E, the Defendant Incorporated Foundation expanded in the trial, and the Defendants’ appeal and Defendant D and E.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s explanation is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, because it is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants

A. (1) Determination as to the cause of the claim 1) The Plaintiff’s claim for the withdrawal of the instant deposit is based on the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”).

(2) Since the act is subject to the denial as prescribed by Article 391 subparagraph 1 of the Depositor Protection Act, the Defendant Union is obligated to return the remaining money out of the withdrawn money to the Plaintiff, excluding KRW 50,000,000,000, which is subject to the Depositor Protection Act, to the other Defendants. 2) The act of knowing that the bankrupt would prejudice the bankruptcy creditors, which is an act subject to the avoidance as prescribed by Article 391 subparagraph 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, includes not only the so-called fraudulent act of absolutely reducing the general property of the bankrupt, which is a joint security of all creditors, as well as the so-called act of offering repayment or security to a specific creditor, which affects the property relationship of the bankrupt, thereby favorable to a specific bankruptcy creditor and against the fairness of other bankruptcy creditors.

On the other hand, in order to be recognized as the above intentional person, the bankrupt should be aware that the bankrupt will harm the bankruptcy creditor as a subjective requirement. In order to prevent the misappropriation of the act subject to denial determined by the debtor rehabilitation and to promote the balance of transaction safety and balance, if the act of making repayment to a specific creditor or providing security is subject to the denial of intention, it is necessary to recognize that only the specific creditor will provide repayment or security in order to avoid the principle of equality of creditors applied when bankruptcy proceedings commence.

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 1000 delivered on November 10, 2005