1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the part of "1. Basic Facts" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the division of property in this case was made to the Defendant under the pretext of division of property following the divorce constitutes “an act of having a debtor know that the debtor would damage any bankruptcy creditor” under Article 391 subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act or “an act of free payment after the debtor has been suspended from payment or a petition for bankruptcy, or within six months before and after the date, and an act of free payment that may be identical thereto.”

Therefore, due to the Plaintiff’s restitution following the exercise of the right to set aside, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of denial of ownership transfer, which was completed on the instant real estate by division of property.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that division of property in this case does not deviate from a considerable degree, and thus cannot be denied.

3. Determination

A. Whether an act constitutes an act of denial under Article 391 subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act (i) legal doctrine and the “act performed by the debtor knowing that it would compromise any bankruptcy creditor”, which is an act subject to denial under Article 391 subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, includes a so-called fraudulent act of absolute reduction of the debtor’s general property, which is a joint security of all creditors. Meanwhile, even if an act is subject to denial under Article 391 subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, if the person who received profits therefrom did not know the fact that he/she would prejudice any bankruptcy creditor at the time of such act, it is impossible to deny, but such act is presumed to have been committed in bad faith by the beneficiary, and thus, the beneficiary bears the burden of proof as to his/her good faith (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da56637, 566