1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiffs and Defendant C are dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs added the plaintiffs to the defendant D in this court.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment on the basic facts and the defense of the principal safety is as follows: (a) the reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding column of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court of first instance saw this court to "the first instance court"; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

2. The plaintiffs asserted that E received hospital revenues from each passbook in the name of I and L, who is a doctor's license lender, and wired the proceeds to Defendant C through the above passbook account, and that E directly wired each gift to Defendant D in the same manner or as shown in attached Table 2, 3, and 4. Each gift contract against the Defendants is fraudulent act, and thus, it should be revoked. Accordingly, Defendant C should pay each of the above 309,30,000 won (=618,60,000 x 1/2) and Defendant D should pay each of the above 406,73,745 won (=813,467,490 x 1/2).

Preliminaryly, if Defendant D’s Pbank account is used by E, E asserts that, as shown in Appendix 5, as shown in Appendix 6, as it was transferred from the above account to W, or transferred to Defendant D’s real estate acquisition funds as listed in Appendix 7, the above gift contract on Defendant D with respect to Defendant D should be revoked as a fraudulent act. Accordingly, Defendant D should pay to the Plaintiffs each amount of KRW 402,443,640 (i.e., KRW 804,87,279 x 1/2).

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. According to the facts established prior to the existence of the preserved claim, the Plaintiffs have claims equivalent to KRW 1,432,067,490 for E and damages for delay.

B. In addition to the above basic facts, Gap evidence Nos. 14, Eul evidence No. 1, and the first instance court's judgment, first of all, whether the fraudulent act was established and the intention of murder, whether the remittance from L account to Defendant C account can be deemed to have been donated by Eul, such as the attached Table No. 1.