1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the case, is as follows: (a) the court, based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, places “Defendant C” as “Defendant”; and (b) Defendant B as “Defendant B as co-Defendant B of the court of first instance”; and (c) Defendant’s assertion added or emphasized by this court as to the assertion added or emphasized by this court, is the same as the entry of the reasoning of the judgment of first instance (excluding the part concerning Co-Defendant B of the court of first instance for which separation has been determined) and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as it is.

2. As to the defendant's bona fide argument

A. The Defendant’s assertion that: (a) around 2013, the Defendant agreed to purchase D’s share in D’s instant 4 and 5 real estate; (b) paid most of the purchase price; but (c) only the fact that the registration tax, etc. was borne, and the registration was registered on November 9, 2017.

In addition, from around 2009 to around 2017, the Defendant continuously lent money to D amounting to approximately KRW 145,00,000, and it is merely the establishment of a collateral security right on the instant real estate to secure the said money.

The defendant is merely a bona fide exercise of the defendant's legitimate right under the circumstance that he did not know about the specific relationship of claims and obligations with D, and thus, it should be deemed that D was a bona fide act.

B. In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, a creditor who asserts revocation of the debtor's bad faith has the burden of proving that the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser is bad faith, not the creditor, but the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser is liable to prove the fact that the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser is bad faith. In the event that the debtor's act of disposal of property constitutes a fraudulent act, the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser is objectively and objectively satisfied.