1. The defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance prior to the remand that was reversed by the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant.

1. Progress of lawsuit and scope of adjudication of this court;

A. (i) The Plaintiffs asserted that the agreement on the settlement of each trademark right listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and E (hereinafter “E”) constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiffs, who are the creditors of E, and sought a reimbursement of KRW 300 million, around the other hand, and sought a preliminary implementation of the procedure for the cancellation of each trademark transfer registration stated in the separate sheet.

The court of the Shedth trial ruled that the settlement agreement constitutes a fraudulent act, and that part of the plaintiffs' claims were revoked. However, the court dismissed the claim for compensation for value by deeming that it does not constitute a reason for compensation for value.

In addition, it was not judged that there is no need to judge the preliminary claim as to the primary claimant's revocation of fraudulent act.

B. Both parties appealed against the first instance judgment prior to the remand.

The plaintiffs added the claim for collection to the primary claim, and made the claim for revocation of the fraudulent act and the corresponding claim for compensation for value, thereby amending the claim and expanding or reducing the claim for compensation for value among the preliminary claims.

See The first instance judgment prior to the remand determined that the primary claim for collection, added by the appellate court, constitutes a duplicate lawsuit, and thus, it is unlawful.

(Dismissal) In addition, the court of first instance determined that the settlement agreement as to the claim for revocation of a fraudulent act among the conjunctive claims constitutes a fraudulent act (the dismissal of the defendant), and that the claim for compensation for value goes beyond the scope of restitution, thus, it cannot be permitted.

(Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Appeal and Removal of Plaintiff C’s Appeal).

(1) The Supreme Court only appealed against the judgment of the first instance before the remand, and the plaintiffs did not appeal to the Supreme Court, thus claiming the collection amount and the compensation for the equivalent amount arising from the revocation of fraudulent act.