The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the lawsuit for revocation of the fraudulent act in this case is unlawful, even if the exclusion period expires.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal principles on the degree of exclusion period,

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance or adopted evidence, concluded a joint project agreement between A (hereinafter "A") and A (hereinafter "PP") and PP (hereinafter "PP") on June 10, 2007. In the above contract, A takes charge of the rental business, the payment of land purchase and purchase price, the financing and use and management of funds, the authorization and permission for the project site, and the acquisition of PP, and the agreement between A and A to take charge of raising funds for project costs only; A independently agreed on November 28, 2007 with B (hereinafter "BP") to lend funds necessary for the project in accordance with the above agreement to B, and the loan agreement between B and PPP is to acquire and lend money to B to PP as necessary for the project, and the loan agreement between B and PPPP is to be applied only to the loan agreement between B and PPPPPP. In accordance with the above agreement, only the loan agreement between B and PPPP.