1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the cancellation shall be dismissed;

2...

1. The reason why this Court uses this part of the basic facts is as stated in the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The court's reasoning for this part of the judgment on the primary claim is the same as the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

(The plaintiff, in the first instance trial, repeats the same arguments in the first instance trial, taking into account the allegations and reasons why the plaintiff partly supplemented in the trial, and even if examining the descriptions of evidence Nos. 11 and 12, which are newly submitted in the trial, which are evidence newly submitted in the trial, the judgment of the first instance is justifiable).

3. Determination on the first and second preliminary claims

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion B is that the Defendant and the Defendant set up the first priority repayment right under the Housing Lease Protection Act by entering into the instant lease agreement with respect to the instant apartment that is the sole house owned by the Defendant in excess of debt, and the instant lease agreement constitutes a fraudulent act. Since the Defendant, a beneficiary, is presumed to be malicious, the instant lease agreement should be revoked as a fraudulent act.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to transfer to the Plaintiff or B the right to claim a dividend of KRW 22,00,000,000, which is held against the Republic of Korea on the basis of the instant distribution schedule due to the cancellation of the instant lease agreement, and notify the Republic of Korea

B. 1) In the revocation of the legal principle on B’s revocation of a fraudulent act, the issue of whether the debtor’s debt is in excess shall be determined at the time of the fraudulent act. As such, in the event that real estate included in the debtor’s active property was sold in the auction procedure after the fraudulent act, the assessment of such real estate shall not be based on the sale price, but on the market price at the