1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 14, 2009, C issued to E an obligee a letter of loan agreement (Evidence A 20) stating that “The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 500 million at a rate of 3% per month interest” with the obligee’s disturbance, and E entered the name of the Plaintiffs in the obligee column.

At the time, C was liable to E or its subsidiaries for a considerable amount of 427 million won in total, such as a loan of the principal amount, and the lower amount of Gri and H each land owned by C and H was set up a collateral security of 500 million won in the F’s maximum debt amount.

B. On January 14, 2009, the Defendant: (a) set interest at 3% per month to lend KRW 300 million to C; and (b) deposited KRW 261,00,000,000, which deducts interest from interest to the account in the name of the Dong I used by E.

C set up a right to collateral security of KRW 2 billion against the Plaintiffs and the Defendant with respect to Ansan-si J, K, L, M, N, the aboveO, P, and Sasung-si Qu Land and ground buildings.

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). Accordingly, F’s collateral security was cancelled.

E deposited KRW 50,000,000 in the accounts of C’s Gyeyang on the same day.

C. On January 15, 2009, Plaintiff A paid KRW 300 million to Plaintiff A’s account, and Plaintiff B paid KRW 150 million to Plaintiff B through her husband S.

C completed the registration of transfer of ownership on April 11, 2016 with respect to each of the instant real property as the receipt No. 14819, April 18, 2016, to the Defendant.

(2) Each entry in the evidence No. 1 through 4, 17, 18, 19, 20, 222 (including each number of numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings, where each entry in the evidence No. 1 to 4, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 22 (including each number of numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The key point of defense was that the instant sales contract was concluded around April 2016, and that C did not have sufficient means at the time of the registration of ownership transfer. Therefore, the part against the Defendant in the instant lawsuit is relevant.