1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment citing this case is as follows, with the exception of additional determination under Article 2.2 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes by dismissal or addition as follows, and thus, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance

[The part to be dismissed or added] The three-party 1 of the judgment of the first instance was "..." The plaintiff applied for a payment order against B, and added "B shall pay to the plaintiff 971,668,308 won and 795,372,106 won which are calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from August 12, 2014 to the date of complete payment." The payment order was issued and confirmed on August 26, 2014.

The “Evidence A No. 42” is added to the “based ground for recognition” of 12 to 13 pages of the judgment of the first instance.

Under the 5th instance judgment of the first instance court, the 6th and 8th class “J” shall be regarded as “F” respectively.

The 5th end of the judgment of the first instance is referring to “B” to “B.”

2. Additional determination on the timing for concluding a sales contract

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant sales contract should be deemed to have been concluded on December 30, 201, which is the date on which the grounds for registration of transfer of each of the instant shares was the date, while the Defendant asserts that the instant sales contract was actually concluded on May 26, 2003, and that the sales contract, which was made on December 30, 201, was merely a form of preparation for a transaction report and registration.

B. 1) Determination 1) When examining whether there was a legal act corresponding to a fraudulent act at a certain point, it shall be determined carefully in consideration of the material impact on the interests between the parties, and the date on which such fraudulent act was actually committed shall be determined as the standard (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da73138, 73145, Jul. 26, 2002). Thus, even if the grounds for registration are indicated on the registry, it may be deemed that the fraudulent act was committed on the above date of cause.