1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasons for this Court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance court are as follows, except for the addition of the following “2. additional determination” as to the allegations emphasized by the Defendants in this Court, and therefore, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the first instance, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendants asserted to the effect that they were unaware of the fact that each of the aforementioned mortgages was in excess of N at the time of entering into the respective mortgage agreement with N, and that they did not know of the fact that each of the above mortgages was harmful to N’s general creditors.

B. In a case where a debtor's act of offering security to a third party constitutes an objective fraudulent act, the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed to have been committed, so unless the beneficiary proves that the act was bona fide at the time of the juristic act, the creditor may cancel the juristic act and claim restitution for its original status. As above, in a case where the debtor's act of offering security to a third party constitutes a fraudulent act, there should be objective and objective evidence, etc. supporting the fact that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, and it should not be readily concluded that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act because only the debtor's unilateral statement or a statement that is merely a third party's explanation, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5710, Apr. 14, 2006).

In light of these legal principles, the entire purport of the pleadings was added to each of the statements from No. 9, No. 1 to No. 5, No. 1 to No. 5, and No. 2 and No. 7 (including the number of serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply). ① Defendant F has continuously supplied goods to N from January 2016, Defendant I had continuously been from June 2016, and Defendant I had continuously supplied goods to N from June 10, 2017. As of August 10, 2017, when the Defendants concluded each contract to establish a mortgage with N, Defendant F was equivalent to KRW 205,675,00, and Defendant F was equivalent to KRW 200.