2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

In this regard, the co-defendant A and B of the first instance court appealed only against the defendant without filing an appeal, so this court will decide only on the cancellation of the fraudulent act and the claim for restitution against the plaintiff.

2. cite the judgment of the court of first instance

A. The grounds alleged by the Defendant in the trial while filing an appeal are that the conclusion of the instant sales contract does not constitute a fraudulent act, or that the Defendant, a beneficiary, was acting in good faith, and is not different from the allegations in the first instance trial, and there is no further evidence submitted by the Defendant in the final trial.

Furthermore, the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court is recognized as legitimate even if all the present circumstances are taken into account by the date of the closing of the arguments in the trial.

[As the Defendant voluntarily acknowledged, the defense that the Defendant acted in good faith as to whether the instant sales contract entered into between the co-defendant A and the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act is not acceptable in light of the following: (a) the family members of the Co-Defendant A in the first instance trial held 70% of the Defendant’s shares (14,000 shares out of 20,000 shares; and (b) the ASEAN held 44.1% of the Defendant’s shares as the Defendant’s internal directors at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract.

Furthermore, according to the evidence Nos. 12-1 and 2, the Plaintiff’s registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the instant real estate on June 4, 2015, and the debtor’s registration was completed on January 28, 2016. However, the above fact of recognition alone is difficult to recognize that the Defendant is a bona fide beneficiary, and the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is alone.