1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. The court of first instance fully accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on the principal lawsuit and partly accepted the Defendants’ claim on the counterclaim, but only the Plaintiff appealed the Defendants’ counterclaim, and the Defendants did not appeal the counterclaim, so the scope of the judgment of the court is limited to the counterclaim claim.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the corresponding part of the judgment, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article

3. Determination on the claim for revocation of fraudulent act

A. The claim for the amount of goods against D by the Defendants as to the existence of the preserved claim is as seen earlier, as seen earlier, that the transfer contract of this case was concluded on or before June 12, 2013, and thus, may constitute the preserved claim for the obligee’s right of revocation.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as indicated in the evidence Nos. 2, 3, 2, 3, and 2 through 5 of the insolvent Party A, it can be acknowledged that the claim of this case is the sole active property of D at the time of entering into the transfer contract of this case and does not exceed KRW 200,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for the Plaintiff at the time of entering into the transfer contract of this case, D bears the obligation to purchase goods of KRW 223,269,920 for the Plaintiff at the time of entering into the transfer contract of this case, the obligation to purchase goods of KRW 26,962,50 for the Defendant Party A

According to the above facts, at the time of entering into the transfer contract of this case, D had more negative assets than active assets in excess of liabilities.

I would like to say.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that D had a claim for the refund of the premium amounting to KRW 4 to 50 million at the time of entering into the instant transfer contract, and that D was not in excess of its obligation, but there is no evidence to support D’s holding of the claim for the refund of the premium at the time of entering into the instant transfer contract, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion

C. The obligor is liable for the fraudulent act.