1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. The reasons for the court ruling with respect to this case are stated in the court ruling of the first instance.

Inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal as follows, it shall be accepted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part to be cut [the judgment as to the defendant C's assertion in 3-B]

A. The Defendant, while lending KRW 20 million to A on January 2, 2015, did not know that B was insolvent at the time, or that the instant act of establishing the right to collateral was a fraudulent act by leasing KRW 20 million to B. The Defendant did not know that B was insolvent at the time, or that the instant act of establishing the right to collateral security was a fraudulent act.

B. Since the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed in a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act, the beneficiary is liable to prove his/her good faith in order to be exempted from his/her liability. In such a case, whether the beneficiary is bona fide or not shall be determined reasonably in light of the logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account 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 circumstances leading to the act of disposal, whether there are no special circumstances to suspect that the terms and conditions of the act of disposal are normal

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74621 Decided July 10, 2008, etc.). C.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the Defendant based on the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in the evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 9 of this case, the circumstance where the Defendant created the instant right to collateral security is unclear, as well as the circumstances where the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against B would be realized, and there are other circumstances to suspect that the instant right to collateral security was not set up to secure the Defendant’s existing claim for reimbursement against B or the Defendant’s existing claim for D (former name: E), and that it was not set up to secure the Defendant’s existing claim for reimbursement against B.