The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, based on the adopted evidence, found that the small amount of property of the corporation B (hereinafter “B”) at the time of entering into the instant promise to sell and purchase the instant building and the sales contract was in excess of the active property amount, and determined that the act of entering into a pre-sale and sales contract with the Defendant during excess of the obligation constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to general creditors including the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances

Examining the record, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are justifiable.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or misapprehending the legal principles on the debtor's insolvency.

2. As to the grounds of appeal No. 2 regarding the establishment of fraudulent act, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds as stated in its reasoning that “The continued operation of the gas station business by financing from the Defendant, who was unable to operate the gas station business due to financial difficulties, concluded the instant purchase and sale reservation and sales contract, which do not constitute a fraudulent act, and thus, constitutes a fraudulent act.”

The judgment below

Examining the grounds and records, the above determination by the lower court is justifiable in accordance with the relevant legal doctrine.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment and revocation of fraudulent act.

(2) In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act as to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal related to the good faith, the beneficiary bears the burden of proof, and in order to recognize that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, there are objective and acceptable evidentiary materials.