In addition to the rejection of I’s testimony by a witness of the trial court, which is not sufficient to recognize Defendant B’s bona fide defense as follows, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to Defendant A’s assertion of good faith as to Defendant A’s assertion, since he did not know that the act of Defendant A constitutes a fraudulent act at the time of concluding the first sale contract of this case, he/she himself/herself defense as a bona fide beneficiary. Since the beneficiary’s bad faith in a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act is presumed in a fraudulent act, the beneficiary is responsible for proving his/her good faith in order to be exempted from his/her responsibility. In such cases, whether the beneficiary is bona fide or not should be determined in light of the logical rules, comprehensively taking into account the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary, the details and the background and motive leading up to the act of disposal between the debtor and the beneficiary, whether there are any special circumstances to suspect that the terms and conditions of the act of disposal were normal transaction, and circumstances after the act of disposal, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da74621, Jul. 10, 2008; 2015Da48467, Dec. 24, 2015).

The first sale contract of this case was concluded to purchase KRW 31,00,000, and the sale was made through K Licensed Real Estate Agent's brokerage operated by the J Licensed Real Estate Agent's Office at that time.