beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: “E. A was declared bankrupt on October 29, 2014 by the Cheongju District Court Decision 2013Hadan854, Cheongju District Court 2014, Cheongju District Court 2013Hadan854, and Attorney D was appointed as a bankruptcy trustee, and Attorney D’s bankruptcy trustee took over the lawsuit in this case on March 24, 2015,” and except for the addition of the judgment as to the matters alleged in the trial by the defendant as set forth in paragraph (2) below, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment in the first instance, and thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The defendant's assertion that he is a bona fide beneficiary since he paid to A, his father, more than KRW 12 million, and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale and purchase of the above real estate in his future.
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 subsequent purchaser is bad faith, but the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is not a creditor, but a creditor is responsible to prove the fact that the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is a bad faith. In a case where the debtor's act of disposal of the debtor's property constitutes a fraudulent act, objective and acceptable evidence, etc. shall be based on the recognition of the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser at the time of the fraudulent act or the preceding act, and only on the unilateral statement of the debtor or beneficiary or the third party's statement, etc., that the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act or the preceding act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da237192, Jun. 11, 2015). In light of the above legal principles, the purport of the entire pleadings as to this case is as follows.