The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case, including the quoted of the first instance judgment, are as follows: (a) the Defendant Company A, “Defendant A”, “Defendant D”, “Defendant B”, “Defendant C” and “Defendant C”; (b) the Defendant E, “Defendant E,” and (c) the relevant part is corrected or added as follows; and (c) the relevant part is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the supplement or addition of the judgment as follows 2 through 5, 4 through 12, 6 and 7, 7, 7, 7, and 7, 7, 7, 8, 12 through 10, 10, 6 through 138, 11 and 111, 6 through 138, 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (including attached Table 420 of the Civil Procedure Act).

2. Revised parts

(a) eliminate the 5th 12th 12th , 5th 4th , and 7th 7th , respectively, “F”;

B. 8 under the 8th below, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 10 and 11 as follows, Eul may recognize the fact that 54 billion won was in arrears at the time of the contract for the establishment of the right to collateral security (2) and that 2.3 billion won was in arrears at the time of the contract for the establishment of the right to collateral security (2). According to the above facts

3. Supplement and addition of judgments;

A. As of December 31, 2013, the Defendant asserts that as of December 31, 2013, A was merely KRW 399,329,180 of its liabilities with its assets up to KRW 9,985,14,060 and it did not exceed its obligations even if it includes the money claimed by the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, it is not directly related to whether the mortgage contract of this case 2 is a fraudulent act, since the plaintiff's claim for revocation is the mortgage contract of this case between D and the defendant, not the excess of D's debt, but the mortgage contract of this case 2 is a fraudulent act.

The defendant's assertion is not accepted.

B. Also, the defendant asserts as follows.

2.2.4