사해행위취소
1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following ‘2. Additional determination' as to the allegations emphasized by the Defendants in this court, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The Defendants asserts that the Additional Determination Defendants purchased the instant Real Estate No. 1 and the instant Land No. 2 under normal transactional relationship with the Plaintiff without knowledge of the financial status of D, and that they constitute a bona fide beneficiary of a fraudulent act and thus, they did not have the obligation to return the original property.
Since the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed in a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act, the beneficiary is responsible for proving his/her good faith in order to be exempted from his/her responsibility.
In such a case, the good faith of a beneficiary shall be determined reasonably in light of logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary, the details of and the background and motive for the act of disposal between the debtor and the beneficiary, the terms and conditions of the act of disposal, the existence of objective data supporting the act of disposal, and circumstances after the act of disposal, etc., in light of the following:
(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da241819 Decided November 29, 2017, etc.). According to the facts and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments, the Defendants, in Kim Jong-si, as a person who was engaged in the livestock industry like D in the instant real estate and neighboring residents living in the instant land No. 1 and the instant land No. 2, left the house without using money, and the Defendants first expressed their intent to purchase and directly concluded the instant sales contract with D without using real estate brokers. The evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to find that the Defendants did not know that the instant sales contract constitutes fraudulent act.