The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Since the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed in a fraudulent act revocation suit, the beneficiary is responsible for proving his good faith in order to be exempted from his responsibility.

In such a case, whether the beneficiary acted in good faith 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, or motive for, the act of disposal between the debtor and the beneficiary, the circumstances leading to the act of disposal, the existence of objective data supporting the act of disposal, and the circumstances after the act of disposal, etc., in light of the following:

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da29090 Decided July 25, 2013). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s presumption of bad faith was reversed, on the grounds that it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the instant share transfer contract was detrimental to the Plaintiff or other creditors at the time of the instant share transfer contract.

Examining the foregoing legal principles and records, the lower court’s 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 presumption of beneficiary's bad faith.

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.