1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

3. Judgment of the court of first instance No. 3.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the determination in paragraphs 2 and 3 as to the additional assertion by Defendant C and E, which are alleged as the grounds for appeal, and thus, it is also cited including the summary thereof pursuant to the main sentence

(However, the portion for Codefendant A Codefendant A, Ltd., a separate final and conclusive judgment). [Attachment ] between “15, 16, 20, 21” and “No. 3 of the first instance judgment and “No. 16” are added.

Part VII of the decision of the first instance court shall add the following:

[Attachment] On October 17, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution with respect to the instant apartment on October 17, 2018, asserting that each of the dividend amounts against Defendant D and E, out of the distribution schedule prepared in the Suwon District Court’s case of the auction of real estate L. real estate for Sungnam branch, which was the auction procedure for the instant apartment (U.S.). On April 16, 2019, the said court rendered a favorable judgment in favor of the Plaintiff without holding any pleadings on the grounds that the said Defendants did not submit a written reply, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 10, 2019 (Defendant E is still pending in the lawsuit of re-adjudication by filing a claim for re-adjudication under the Suwon District Court’s Sungnam Branch Branch Branch 2019 Jaehap16) with respect to the said judgment on July 22, 2019.

(ii)as follows, Chapters 5 and 12 of the first instance judgment are followed:

C) Restoration of an assignment of claim that constitutes a fraudulent act with respect to F’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment to the obligor should be made by way of returning the claim that the beneficiary acquired by the fraudulent act to the obligor once the beneficiary actually collects from the garnishee. Thus, the assignment of claim to the third obligor should be made by way of returning the claim that the beneficiary acquired by the fraudulent act to the obligor.