1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs ordering revocation and performance below shall be revoked. A.

(i).

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

“(2) Since the beneficiary’s bad faith is presumed in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act by relevant legal principles, the beneficiary is obligated to prove his/her good faith in order to be exempted from his/her responsibility. In such a case, whether the beneficiary is bona fide or not shall be determined reasonably in light of the logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary; (b) the details of the act of disposal between the debtor and the beneficiary; (c) the background or motive leading up to such act; (d) there are no special circumstances to doubt that the terms and conditions of the act of disposal; and (e) there are no objective materials to support the act of disposal; and (e) circumstances after the act of disposal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74621, Jul. 10, 2008). (3) Evidence Nos. 7, 8, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 21, and the evidence presented by the witness at the first instance trial.

① A witness of the first instance court proposed the purchase of real estate in preference to the Defendant’s side among multiple creditors, and D also prepares a confirmation document that protects the Defendant’s side even in the absence of the business. The witness of the Defendant side D and the witness of the first instance court seems to be very close.

② The Defendant asserted that D has a claim of KRW 290 million, but the content and cause of the claim.