Of the instant suit, all of the primary and conjunctive claims added in the trial are dismissed.

The plaintiff.

1. As to the claim for indemnity

A. The ground for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument of the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justified even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning of this court's judgment is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part which is dismissed as set forth in the following 2.1. Therefore, it is citing it as it is by the main text of Article

B. 1) The phrase “105,031,436 won” in the second sentence of the second sentence of the first instance judgment is “105,301,436 won”. 2) The Defendant deleted “the Defendant purchased or sold the instant machinery from one another” under the fifth sentence of the first instance judgment, and “the Defendant purchased or sold the instant machinery in total at KRW 290,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won between the Nonparty Company and Nonparty Company on November 1, 2015.

"Ero-friendly".

3. As to the revocation of the fraudulent act and the claim for restitution

A. The summary of the party’s assertion 1) both of the sales contract of goods dated November 1, 2015 and the mechanical sales contract of November 2, 2015 concluded between the plaintiff and the non-party company constitutes a fraudulent act reducing joint security against the plaintiff, who is the creditor of the non-party company. The defendant has a duty to cancel each of the above sales contract within the scope of the plaintiff’s preserved claim amount, and compensate for the value. The defendant has a duty to cancel each of the above sales contract within the scope of the plaintiff’s preserved claim amount and return each of the machinery and inventory. 2) The defendant’s claim for revocation of the fraudulent act by the defendant was filed one year after the date on which the grounds for revocation became known.

In addition, each of the machinery and inventory goods of this case are of low property value and they are purchased by the defendant with due payment, and they do not constitute a fraudulent act.

B. This safety defense.