1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. All costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Circumstances leading to the dispute of this case;

A. Mediation was concluded that “D shall pay KRW 26,00,000 to the Plaintiff, by November 5, 2014,” which was filed by the Plaintiff against D for the payment of the purchase price for the goods (hereinafter “the instant plaque”) in accordance with the purchase and sale contract dated November 18, 201, and filed by the Plaintiff for the payment of the purchase price for the goods (Seoul District Court Decision 2013Da3146).”

(A) No. 2, hereinafter referred to as “instant claim”). B.

Based on the claim of this case, the Plaintiff applied for a compulsory auction against D’s real estate, and received dividends of KRW 5,341,598, and applied for a seizure and collection order against D’s claim against Defendant B and KRW 15,000 as to Defendant C, the Plaintiff applied for a seizure and collection order against “the amount until it is in excess of KRW 15,394,790 as to Defendant B, and KRW 15,000 as to Defendant C,” and decided to accept it on February 3, 2016.

A No. 3, hereinafter referred to as "the collection order of this case"

(i) [Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entries in Gap evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that D, around November 18, 201, sold the instant plaque purchased from the Plaintiff to the Defendants immediately, based on the instant collection order, the Plaintiff claimed for the payment of the purchase price, and subsequently, donated D, on November 18, 201, the instant plaque purchased from the Plaintiff to the Defendants immediately, and that the gift constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, the creditor, by reducing the liability property of D, and thus, it constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s obligee. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s revocation within the scope of the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s purchase price and the Defendants are obliged to pay the amount equivalent to the unpaid purchase price to the Plaintiff to its original state.

The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is sufficient to recognize that D sold or donated the instant plaque to the Defendants, as alleged by the Plaintiff.