1. The part against Defendant F in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

Defendant F Co., Ltd. is Defendant E and each of them.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination as to each claim against Defendant E and F

A. In principle, a claim protected by the right of revocation of a fraudulent act needs to be established prior to the occurrence of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, there is a high probability as to the fact that a claim has already been established at the time of the fraudulent act, which is based on the legal relationship in the near future, and that a claim has been established in the near future. In the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim of the right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da40955, Nov. 12, 2004). Based on the above legal reasoning, the instant case may be considered as a health care claim of the first instance court, which sought revocation of the fraudulent act by the Plaintiff as a fraudulent act, and around March 15, 2013, which was the date of the conclusion of the instant contract with Defendant E, the Plaintiff’s representative director B, who was a preserved claim of revocation of the fraudulent act of this case, and the aforementioned legal relationship was established as a credit guarantee agreement between the Defendant B and the above two (2130 million).

7.1. around September 7, 201, A caused a credit guarantee accident in which a company bank delays the repayment of loans, and thus, it was highly probable that the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against B would be constituted in the near future. In fact, upon the company bank’s request, the Plaintiff on September 30, 2013.