1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended at the trial room, shall be modified as follows:

Defendant A.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420

In full view of the contents of “construction cost” in Part 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 22, 23, 24, 28, 3, 17, 20-2 through 5 of evidence Nos. 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 23, 24, 28, 28, 3, 17, 20-2 and 5 of the first instance court’s Jeju Mayor, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the Court Administration’s fact-finding results, and the whole purport of pleadings, at the time of entering into the mortgage contract of this case, the small property and active property of the non-party company

[negative Property] In determining whether the debtor's insolvency, which is a requirement for the exercise of the creditor's right of revocation, it is necessary to say that in principle, the act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act was occurred before the act was committed. However, there is a legal relationship which has already been based on the establishment of the obligation at the time of the fraudulent act, and there is high probability about the fact that the obligation is established in the near future, and in the near future, the debt should also be included in the debtor's small property in case where the debt

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the non-party company’s passive property is KRW 321,452,054 (= Principal KRW 21,452,054) as a loan obligation against L, and KRW 121,543,60 as a loan obligation against the Plaintiff (i.e., Principal KRW 300 million) (i., KRW 21,452,054); and KRW 154,643,60 as a loan obligation against the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 33,100), credit card payment liability KRW 17,456,750 as a credit card payment obligation; KRW 202,00,00 as a construction payment obligation against W; KRW 35,00,000 as a loan payment obligation against Q27,274,270 as a total of the construction payment obligations against the Plaintiff.