1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for any modification or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. On the 10th of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added to the amended or added portion:

『⑨ C가 피고에게 이 사건 공정증서를 작성해준 일자인 2014. 1. 10.은 원고들이 C에 대한 채권을 청구채권으로 하여 C의 서울특별시에 대한 공사대금채권에 대하여 채권압류 및 추심 또는 채권가압류를 신청하던 무렵이고, C는 그 후 2014. 6. 16. 영업부진으로 폐업하였던 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, C가 피고에게 이 사건 공정증서를 작성하여 준 것은 강제집행에 나선 원고들의 추심금 또는 배당금을 감소시킬 의도에서 비롯된 것으로 보인다.』 제1심판결 제12면 제18행의 “피고가”를 “C가”로 고친다.

The following shall be added to the 11th judgment of the first instance.

“The amount of claims claimed by creditors against C, including the plaintiffs, in the instant dividend procedure is as seen above. In full view of the entries and the purport of the entire pleadings as to Gap evidence No. 8, it is true that Non-Party W, around July 2012, filed a lawsuit against C and won a favorable judgment (Seoul District Court Decision 2013Da11894 decided Apr. 25, 2014) on the ground that he/she supplied materials of KRW 59,912,600 in total to C, but he/she did not receive the said amount of claims (Seoul District Court Decision 2013Da11894 decided Apr. 25, 2014). The Defendant revoked the issuance of the instant promissorysory note against the defendant within the scope of KRW 72,124,921, a sum of damages for delay based on the said judgment, and the defendant transferred the above amount of claims for dividend payment under the instant dividend procedure to C and notified it to the Republic of Korea on January 29, 2016