2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. In accordance with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Da5226868 decided August 22, 2018 ( finalized on August 13, 2019), the Plaintiff held D’s total claim amounting to KRW 56,691,323 as of January 31, 2020, including the principal and interest, etc. as of January 31, 2020; D made and granted written notice to the Plaintiff on September 4, 2019, to the effect that the Plaintiff promised to pay off the above claim; D’s transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant on the grounds of sale on November 12, 2019 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was either disputed between the parties, or recognized by taking into account the overall purport of oral proceedings as a whole.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that the sales contract between the Defendant and D on the instant real estate constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, and sought its revocation and restitution, and the Defendant asserts that it is a bona fide beneficiary.

C. Although the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the issue of whether the beneficiary's good faith is determined reasonably by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary; the details and motive of the act of disposal between the debtor and the beneficiary; the circumstances leading to the act of disposal; whether there are no special circumstances to doubt that the terms and conditions of the act of disposal are normal and reasonable; and whether there are objective materials supporting the normal transaction; and the circumstances after the act of disposal. There is no issue of whether there is the beneficiary'

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da74621 Decided July 10, 2008; 2014Da19073 Decided July 23, 2015, etc.) D.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including where there is a serial number), the Defendant, who had colored a new factory site, was the subject of this case from D on November 2, 2018.