1. As to the Plaintiff, Defendant A and B’s joint and several costs of KRW 77,680,180 and KRW 77,680,104 among them, from August 19, 2013 to March 1, 2014.

1. The facts as to the claim for reimbursement are without dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the plaintiff and the defendant Eul can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 8, Gap evidence 9, Eul evidence 10, and Gap evidence 2 are insufficient to reverse the above facts. Thus, the defendant Gap and Eul jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff 7,680,180 won ( = 77,878,864 won - 198,760 won - 77,680,104 won among them (=77,878,864 won - 198,760 won) and the rate of delay damages from 14.15% to 24.4% of the last day of 2013 to 14.14% of the contract as to this case's subrogation.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the sales contract concluded on February 19, 2013 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) between Defendant C and Defendant B constituted a fraudulent act, and sought compensation as the cancellation of the said contract and its restitution.

In full view of the purport of the arguments in evidence No. 3, evidence No. 7, evidence No. 11, evidence No. 12, evidence No. 13, evidence No. 14, evidence No. 15, evidence No. 15, evidence No. 3, evidence No. 4, evidence No. 7, evidence No. 9-10, evidence No. 11, evidence No. 12, evidence No. 14, evidence No. 15, and evidence No. 15, the whole purport of the arguments in evidence No. 15 is as follows: the small property of Defendant B at the time of the sales contract of this case is 48,815,118 (see Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Da517254, Jul. 8, 2014); the debts No. 76,815,000, evidence No. 7, Eul evidence No. 9-27, Eul evidence No. 27, and evidence No. 27475.