1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

1. The reasoning for this part of the court’s reasoning is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the alteration or addition of a part as follows. As such, this part of the court’s findings are cited in accordance with the main sentence of

(hereinafter) Codefendant B and C in the first instance trial are limited to “B” and “C”. The part of “based ground for recognition” from the fourth to the fifth of the first instance judgment is changed to “(based on recognition”) fact-finding, Gap’s evidence 1 through 5, Eul’s evidence 1 through 7 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul’s evidence 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and the fact-finding inquiry and reply with respect to Lbank in the first instance court, the fact-finding inquiry results in the first instance court and the court’s fact-finding inquiry with respect to each Mstock Company and the purport of the entire pleadings.”

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. From September 2004, Defendant D agreed to receive KRW 7,35 million as part of the damages including liability insurance money from J as the agent of B and C, and received KRW 45 million as the aggregate amount deposited by J in accordance with the Reconciliation Recommendation Order dated September 28, 2007, which became final and conclusive in the Daegu District Court Decision 2006Kadan170918 (No. 2006Gadan170918).

The above insurance money received by Defendant D as above is paid as liability insurance money by J as the insurer of the assistive vehicle, and the part paid as liability insurance money shall be deemed as the inherited property.

Therefore, the plaintiff, as the creditor of B and C, claims the return of the above custody amount in subrogation of B and C against the defendant D who is in custody of KRW 118,50,00,00 insurance money, which is the only property of B and C.

B. Defendant D entered into the instant sales contract in collusion with Defendant F, one of its own words, in order to evade the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of insurance money or compulsory execution.

The sales contract of this case is a false declaration of intention that has conspired, which is null and void pursuant to Article 108(1) of the Civil Act or should be revoked by fraudulent act.

Therefore, Defendant F shall transfer ownership registration of this case to Defendant D.