1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are 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 the evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows, except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Determinations” as to a part of the assertion emphasized or added by the Defendant in this Court, and therefore, this Court’s reasoning is acceptable in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(However, the part against Codefendant B and C in the first instance court, which became separated, is excluded). Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant real estate was the active property B at the time of entering into the instant sales contract, without any additional proof or investigation as to the existence of cash, bonds, or other movable assets in addition to the instant real estate, is erroneous as to the status of insolvency or excess of debt.

B. As seen in the above facts in the judgment of the court of first instance, B appears to have no special property other than the instant real estate at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and there is no counter-proof. As alleged by the Defendant, even if B had property other than the instant real estate at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, as alleged by the Defendant, the value of the relevant property was not significant. Moreover, in light of the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the entry of evidence No. 9 and the fact inquiry into I by the court of first instance, it appears that B’s obligation at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract was KRW 3 billion, and even according to the Defendant’s assertion, B was in the state of failing to pay wages to employees from November 2017. If comprehensive consideration of these various circumstances, B was in excess of its obligation at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract.