1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance is applicable.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the third to third to third is used as follows, and the third to nine "the first to nine" in the first to "the answer" is the same as the reasoning of the first instance judgment. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

B. The Defendant’s defense as to the Defendant’s bona fide beneficiary defense 1) The Defendant’s defense was introduced by F, a real estate broker, and the Defendant acquired the ownership by an exchange contract from G at the time of September 17, 2012, but the registration was not completed yet, Busan Dong-gu, Busan’s underground floor No. 101 (hereinafter “EB”).

(C) The Plaintiff shall exchange the instant real estate, and the Defendant shall pay C the exchange difference of KRW 40,000,000 (hereinafter “instant exchange agreement”).

(2) In lieu of paying C the exchange difference of KRW 40,00,000, the Defendant defense that the Defendant is a bona fide beneficiary who completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate in accordance with the instant exchange contract by paying C the sum of KRW 45,050,000 for the provisional seizure of creditor H with regard to the instant real estate (the Busan District Court 2009Kadan4262 Real Estate Provisional Seizure case), KRW 15,200,000 for the marine deposit money of KRW 5,000 for the bank, KRW 9,50,000 for the registration fee of the instant real estate, and KRW 15,80,000 for the remaining evacuation expenses, and KRW 45,050,000 for the third party's property transfer to C is presumed to be a fraudulent act subject to the creditor's right of revocation, and thus, there is a burden of proof that the beneficiary was unaware of the fraudulent act at the time of the fraudulent act.