In the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the defendant shall be revoked.

A list between the defendant and the co-defendant B of the first instance trial.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the parts used or deleted as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Use] The "Defendant A" recorded in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be construed as "A", and the "Defendant B" shall be construed as "B".

Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance court "2. Establishment of fraudulent act" shall be "the establishment of fraudulent act and restitution to the original state".

The 6th to 7th of the judgment of the first instance court shall be followed by the following parts.

B. The defendant asserts that the mortgage contract of this case was a bona fide beneficiary since he did not know that it constitutes a fraudulent act.

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the burden of proving the debtor's bad faith is not the creditor, but the beneficiary bears the burden of proving his/her good faith. In cases where the debtor's act of disposal of the debtor's property constitutes a fraudulent act, evidence, etc. that can be objectively and easily obtained when recognizing that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act should not be readily concluded that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da237192, Jun. 11, 2015). However, the aforementioned facts and the statements mentioned in Articles 1 and 2, 1, 2, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 1, 2011.