1. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s appeal against Defendant E and Defendant D’s appeal are all dismissed.

2...

1. The part used by citing the judgment of the court of first instance

A. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on “ October 17, 2017” in the fifth 8 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance “No. 17, 2017.”

B. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the 5th 11st of the 5th 11st of the 5th 11st “the said distribution schedule became final and conclusive,” “The said distribution schedule became final and conclusive, but the Plaintiff did not actually pay the said dividends to Defendant D in accordance with the decision of provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of collateral security (Evidence A5-2 and Evidence A7-1) in the case of a provisional application for prohibition of the disposal of collateral security in the Incheon District Court 2016Kahap32.”

C. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the 6th one of the 6th judgment “after this, the above distribution schedule became final and conclusive as is,” “The above distribution schedule was determined as is, but the Plaintiff did not actually pay the said dividends to Defendant E in accordance with the decision of provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of collateral security (Evidence A5-1, No. 17-2, No. 27-3) in the case of a provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of collateral security at the Incheon District Court’s Busan District Court Branch Branch.”

D. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the 2, 3 and the 6th day below each of the “date of the closing of argument in the instant case” in each of the 6th day below.

E. Of the 13th judgment of the first instance, “The sum of KRW 2,224,48,583” in the part “2,224,48,583” in the said part “as of June 21, 2019, which is the date of the closing of argument in this court, the damages for delay has increased above, but as long as the sum of the preserved claim and damages for delay already exceeds KRW 484,524,498 in the amount of dividends against Defendant D at the time of the closing of argument in the first instance court, there is no impact on the revocation of fraudulent act against Defendant D and the scope of restitution).”

F. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part “Around December 21, 2017” in the said part “Around 21, 2017.”

G. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part “the purchaser who has been supplied with goods through a supply contract” in the 17th five and six parts of the judgment of the court of first instance is an obvious error or clerical error in the judgment of the court of first instance.