The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the assertion that the beneficiary was unaware of the fact that he/she was a fraudulent act has the burden of proof on the beneficiary himself/herself, and in order to recognize that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, objective and acceptable evidence, etc. should be supported, and it should not be readily concluded that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act only with the unilateral statement of the debtor or a statement that is merely a third party, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da61280, Jul. 4, 2006). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that it was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was bona fide at the time when acquiring the instant mortgage.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or misapprehending the legal principles on the good faith of the beneficiary in a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.