1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The part of the appeal by the defendant A, out of the costs of appeal, shall be the defendant A.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which the court should explain, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following description as to the assertion added or especially emphasized by the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Additional determination

A. Defendant B’s assertion that Defendant B’s act of disposal of the property as indicated in the table below was against KRW 3,300,000,000,000,000,00 from July 2, 2016 to March 2017, and thus, Defendant B did not have any obligation at the time of entering into a sales contract for the property of this case. Defendant B asserted to the purport that the debtor’s act of disposal of the property of this case was not in excess of the obligation at the time of entering into a sales contract for the property of this case. The debtor’s act of disposal of the property of this case shall cause a decrease in the debtor’s whole property and shall cause a shortage in the joint security for claims. In other words, the debtor’s positive property should be more than the active property, and even if the debtor’s active property and claims exceed the creditor’s total amount of obligation at the time of disposal of the property, it should be excluded from the property that cannot serve as joint security for claims, and if it is a claim, it shall be easily confirmed.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da32533, Oct. 12, 2001) No. 17 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da32533, Oct. 12, 2001).

However, the following circumstances, i.e., D, February 15, 2017, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of all the evidence and the purport of the whole arguments mentioned above.