1. All appeals by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows: (a) add the judgment on the assertion added or emphasized by the Defendants in the trial; and (b) add “Defendant G” of the first instance judgment to “Co-Defendant G of the first instance trial”; and (c) add “Defendant G” of the first instance judgment to “Co-Defendant G of the first instance trial”; and therefore, (d) refer to the reasoning of the first instance judgment in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendants’ assertion 1) For the following reasons, H’s small property at the time of entering into each of the instant joint and several liability agreements is merely KRW 4,423,973,752, and does not exceed H’s active property 4,507,798,050. Therefore, each of the instant joint and several liability agreements does not constitute a fraudulent act against H’s general creditors, including the Plaintiffs. A) In the case of a joint and several liability agreement of KRW 480,000,000 at L, AE, and AF’s 101, Dong Building No. 101,000 (hereinafter “instant condominium”), which is the principal debtor of the instant joint and several liability, with respect to the joint and several liability of KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00H’s total property.

B) In the case of a loan obligation of KRW 2 billion against H’s village branch (No. 18 in order), the above loan obligation should be excluded from H’s small property, as it was discharged by H on April 1, 2012, which was prior to the conclusion of each of the instant mortgage contract. (2) At the time of entering into each of the instant mortgage contract, H was disputing creditors, including the Plaintiffs, about the existence of each of the instant claims.