The judgment below

This part of the case is reversed except for the portion of the Appointor D.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”)’s assertion that the instant advisory contract and the issuance of promissory notes pursuant thereto was revoked pursuant to Article 110(1) of the Civil Act, on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the instant advisory contract was concluded by the Defendant’s deception.

In light of the records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the cancellation of declaration of intent by fraud, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant advisory contract violates Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act and becomes null and void.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on legal affairs under Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal

3. As to the third ground for appeal

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s claim based on the authentic deed of promissory notes can only be asserted as an objection according to the instant legal proceedings, and thus, the Defendant’s failure to report the claim as a rehabilitation claim in the rehabilitation proceedings against the Plaintiff, and the above claim cannot be deemed as forfeited solely on the ground that it is not indicated in the rehabilitation claim details.

B. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

1) The Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”)

Any rehabilitation creditor who intends to participate in rehabilitation procedures pursuant to Articles 148 and 152, etc. shall report the rehabilitation claims. The rehabilitation claims indicated in the list pursuant to Article 151 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act are deemed to have been reported. However, the rehabilitation claims that were not reported as above are deemed to have been reported.