구상금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked.
2. All of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants.
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: ① each "Defendant A" among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance is as "A", each "Defendant B" is as "B", each "Defendant C" is as "C", each "Defendant D" is as "D", and ② The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance is as 3 of Part 11 which is the 19th 19th c.
Pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, paragraph (2) below the same applies to the reasoning of the first instance judgment except for the dismissal as in the foregoing paragraph.
(However, the parts used in relation to Codefendant A, B, C, and D in the first instance trial are excluded). 2.
D. The Defendants’ assertion 1) The summary of the Defendants’ assertion is as follows: (a) the Defendants purchased each of the instant real estate from B and D, which was unaware of prior to the conclusion of each of the instant sales contracts, and actually paid KRW 69 million in total; and (b) the Defendants are bona fide beneficiaries as they were unaware of the status of excess of obligations B and D at the time of conclusion of each of the instant sales contracts; and (c) the Defendants were presumed to be bad faith in a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act; (d) as such, the Defendants were presumed to be beneficiaries of the relevant legal principles, the Defendants are liable to prove their good faith in order to discharge their
In such a case, whether the beneficiary acted in good faith shall be determined reasonably in light of logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary, the details of and the background or motive for the act of disposal between the debtor and the beneficiary, the transaction terms and conditions of the act of disposal, the existence of objective materials supporting the act of disposal, and the circumstances after the act of disposal, etc.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74621, Jul. 10, 2008). Moreover, when recognizing that a beneficiary was bona fide at the time of such fraudulent act, objective and acceptable evidence, etc. should be supported.