1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. The Plaintiff filed a claim against the co-defendant A and B of the first instance trial, and against the co-defendant D of the first instance trial for the revocation of fraudulent act and restitution to its original state, respectively, and the Defendant filed a claim for the revocation of the fraudulent act and restitution to its original state in the first instance trial.

The court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in respect of each claim against the co-defendant A, B, and D of the first instance court: Provided, That with respect to the claim against the co-defendant A and B of the first instance court, the judgment in favor of the plaintiff in accordance

B. As to the primary claim against the Defendant, the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff was rendered, and the conjunctive claim against the Defendant was not determined separately.

B. As to this, the Defendant only appealed against the part of the Plaintiff’s primary claim against the Defendant, the scope of this court’s adjudication is limited to the above scope of objection.

2. cite the judgment of the court of first instance

A. The grounds alleged by the Defendant in the appeal by this court are as follows: “The co-defendant A of the first instance trial was not in excess of the obligation at the time of the conclusion of the first sale contract, and the conclusion of the first sale contract did not bring about the shortage of common security for general creditors. Even if the first sale contract constitutes a fraudulent act, the Defendant is a bona fide beneficiary who did not know that the first sale contract constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, is identical or similar to the content alleged by the Defendant in the first instance trial.”

However, if the first instance court and the evidence submitted to this court are examined, the above argument of the defendant is rejected, and the first instance court's findings and judgment ordering the cancellation of the first sale contract corresponding to fraudulent act and the compensation for the value of the defendant are recognized as legitimate.

B. The reasoning of the judgment of the court concerning this case is to be stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification or addition of a part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows.