1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal (including costs arising from participation) shall be borne by the Defendants.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) under the 3th page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the fourth (hereinafter "loan Claim") " "the loan of this case" is "the loan of this case" and the loan of this case is "the loan of this case"; (b) the second (d) "the witness of the second (e.g., the second (e., the second)" is "the witness of the court of first instance"; and (c) the plaintiff assistant of the second (e.g., the plaintiff assistant of the second (e., the plaintiff assistant of this case) transferred "the defendant company" to " September 17, 2013," and (d) the second (e.g., the second (e., the second (e., the second) transfer of the loan of this case to "the defendant company" of this case to "the next (e.g., the second)" of the judgment of the court of first instance and the second (e., the second (e., the second) judgment of this judgment.

2. Determination on addition

A. As seen in the above cited part of the judgment on the grounds of appeal, it is difficult to view the instant monetary consumption lending contract as a multiple false indication, and even if the agreement was falsely entered, the Plaintiff constitutes “a bona fide third party” under Article 108(2) of the Civil Act, and it is reasonable to deem that the instant sales contract was concluded in order to secure the repayment of the instant loan, and that the Defendant Company paid the light price of H in the auction procedure of the instant case.

It is difficult to see that the evidence Nos. 6, 9, and 15 of the evidence Nos. 1, 15 of the evidence Nos. 5, 2, 3, 7, and 1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 5-2, 3, 7 of the evidence Nos. 1, and 1 and 2 of the witness Nos. 1 and 2 of the first instance trial or some of the testimony of the witness No. 1 and 2 of the above part are insufficient to reverse the recognition or judgment of the facts in relation to the above cited part. Thus, all of the defendants' arguments on the grounds for appeal on the different premise are not acceptable.

B. The Defendants’ determination as to the assertion of addition of the above judgment is made.