1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant that changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.

2. Between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part of the court of first instance 6 to 7, 15, i.e., the 6, 6, and 7, 15, i.e., the following.

2. Parts to be dried;

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) asserts that the Defendant had never known that the mortgage contract in this case with A was detrimental to the creditors including the Plaintiff at all. 2) The burden of proving that there was no bad faith for the purchaser or the transferor of the object due to the fraudulent act is the beneficiary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da84458, May 14, 2009). If the obligor’s act of disposing of the property constitutes a fraudulent act, it shall be based on objective and objective evidence, etc. to recognize that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, and it shall not be readily concluded that the subsequent purchaser or the subsequent purchaser was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act or the subsequent purchaser’s unilateral statement or the third party’s abstract statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da237192, Jun. 11, 2015).

(A) In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant did not know that the instant mortgage contract would prejudice the other creditors of A) by examining the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da22661, Sept. 8, 2006) and the Defendant’s agent as to the instant mortgage contract, which is the Defendant’s agent as to the instant mortgage contract.