1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case that is used by the court as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

(The grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and according to the evidence adopted and examined by the first instance court, the fact finding and judgment by the first instance court are justifiable). 2. Under the second instance judgment of the second part of the first instance, “2,95 square meters” in the first instance shall be deemed as “2,95 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”),” “2,995 square meters” in the third part 10, “30.8, 2010.6,” and “2017Kao382” in the fourth part 9 shall be deemed as “2017Kao372.”

Part 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance is written by putting the "frighting point" in Part 2 as follows:

【The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act against K on the ground that D sells 1/2 square meters of the 704 square meters of Gunsan-si L, Sinsan-si, Sinsan-si, on November 18, 2015 (U.S. District Court 2016Dahap1867, Seoul High Court 2017Na18820, hereinafter referred to as “Gunsan-si land lawsuit”).

In the context of the establishment of the right to collateral security at the time of the establishment of the right to collateral security, Defendant B discussed the establishment of the right to collateral security at the time of the establishment of the right to collateral security at the time of the establishment of the right to collateral security.

The situation is becoming difficult.

In particular, it was required from the side of the system.

(5) The judgment ordering cancellation of the transfer of ownership in the name of K, which was concluded on November 18, 2015, was final and conclusive on November 19, 2015, and on November 19, 2015, as alleged by the Plaintiff, D was expected to file a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the fraudulent act.