1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons why this Court should explain concerning this part of the judgment on the basis of facts and the grounds for the claim are stated in Section B of the judgment of the court of the first instance, "D" and "C", and Section B of the judgment of the court of the first instance.

In addition to the following cases, the “determination on the Defendant’s assertion” is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Sheon portion "b."

(1) The defendant's assertion on the defendant's defense (1) was a bona fide beneficiary since the defendant lent KRW 70,000,000 to E on June 11, 2015, and received the registration of establishment of the neighboring area of this case as security, and did not know about the claim relationship or lawsuit between C and the plaintiff.

(2) If an obligor’s act of offering security to a third party constitutes an objective fraudulent act, the obligee is presumed to have been maliciously committed by the beneficiary. Thus, unless the beneficiary proves that the third party was bona fide at the time of the juristic act, the obligee may cancel the juristic act and claim restitution for the original state accordingly.

Where an obligor’s act of disposal of property, such as provision of security, against a third party constitutes a fraudulent act, there should be objective and objective evidence, etc. in recognizing that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, and it should not be readily concluded that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, based on only the obligor’s unilateral statement or a statement that is merely a third party’s prosecution, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5710, Apr. 14, 2006). (3) In light of such legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged through the entire purport of each statement in subparagraph 3-1 through 3, and each reply of each court of first instance to the financial transaction information order at the court, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the circumstances alleged by the Defendant alone are insufficient to presume the Defendant’s bad faith and that the Defendant was bona fide.