The judgment below

The part concerning the defendant N andO shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Determination on the grounds of appeal by Defendant N andO

(a) Since the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the beneficiary is responsible for proving his/her good faith in order to be exempted from his/her responsibility.

In such a case, the good faith of a beneficiary shall be determined reasonably in light of logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary, the details and motive of 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 the normal transactional relationship, and whether there are objective data to support the act of disposal,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da14539, Jul. 14, 2016). (B)

As to the Defendants’ assertion that P’s act constitutes a fraudulent act, Defendant N andO is a bona fide beneficiary, in light of the following: (a) the registration of ownership transfer in the above Defendants’ name was completed without paying the remainder following the date following the conclusion of the sales contract; (b) the P demanded payment of the balance of KRW 100 million in cash; and (c) all transaction procedures were conducted only seven days; and (d) the purchaser would normally have expressed doubt as to the reason thereof; (b) the Defendants did not make efforts to construct a new building while purchasing the land for the purpose of constructing the new building; and (c) rather leased the land to P, it is insufficient to recognize it as a bona fide good faith by reversing the presumption of bad faith.

C. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below as it is.

1) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following facts are revealed. (A) The debtor P filed a claim against U for the transfer of ownership based on the completion of the prescriptive acquisition period with respect to the Busan Seo-gu AT large of 168.6 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).