2. As to the shares of 2/10 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and B, 2014.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant donation should be revoked as a fraudulent act detrimental to the obligee, including the Plaintiff. The Defendant asserted that there was no intention of deception at the time of the instant donation.

B. (1) The facts that the establishment of a fraudulent act and the transfer of the shares in the instant apartment to the Defendant, at the time of the transfer of the shares in co-ownership of the apartment, led to the disposal of the instant apartment as well as the shares in co-ownership of the apartment, as there is no dispute between the parties concerned. Thus, the disposal of the instant apartment co-ownership constitutes a fraudulent act that objectively undermines the creditors of B, and the intention of the Defendant, the debtor B and the beneficiary,

(2) In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act against the Defendant’s bona fide defense, the beneficiary must prove that the beneficiary himself/herself was bona fide, not the creditor’s burden of proof, but in order to recognize that the debtor’s act of disposal of the property constitutes a fraudulent act, the beneficiary shall be based on objective and acceptable evidence, etc. In order to acknowledge that the beneficiary was bona fide, and only the debtor’s unilateral statement or a statement that is merely a third party’s drilling, etc., may not be readily concluded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da237192, Jun. 11, 2015). According to the health stand, according to the above evidence, following the following evidence, it was acknowledged that the Defendant paid the principal and interest on the debt to the company B at the time of the donation of the apartment in this case on April 25, 2014.