1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case at issue in the first instance court’s ruling are as follows: “ September 20, 2012.” “ September 20, 2010.” “No. 10. 1, 2010.” “No. 1, 2010.” “No. 1, 2010. 1,” respectively; and 2. of the reasons for the first instance court’s ruling.

B. 2) In addition to the following cases, the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court is the same as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, and thus, it is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as it is. 2) In full view of the evidence mentioned above, and the overall purport of the oral argument as a whole as to the testimony of the witness J and G of the first instance trial and the fact-finding by the Seocho-gu Office, the defendant was not aware of the fact that the sales contract of this case was a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditor of B, and thus, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's presumption of bad faith was reversed.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

① While Defendant husband and wife returned to several licensed real estate agents offices from February 2013 to June 2013, 2013, and as to the volume of KRW 1,000,000 to KRW 1,00,000,000, the Defendant couple was introduced G from J, which caused the assisting affairs of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Office around June 2013.

On the other hand, G requested the J immediately before the introduction of the defendant couple to sell the commercial building of this case as the agent B.

② Defendant Husband and wife, or G are not in a relative relationship with each other, and for the instant sales contract, the introduction of real estate intermediaries was entirely unaware of each other before the first delivery.

③ At the time of the instant sales contract, the condition that G will cancel the registration of each collateral security in the name of G, I, and national bank and the provisional seizure in the name of H was stipulated by a special agreement until G would pay any balance. G would transfer KRW 75,000,000 to D, a law firm representing the Defendant on July 17, 2013 in accordance with the said special agreement.