1. The part of the first instance judgment against the Defendants shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

3...

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the part of the 13th parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel with the 4th parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel with the 15th parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel with the 13th parallel parallel parallel and the 15th parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel, and thus, they are cited as it is

2. The main issue of Defendant E, F, and D’s bona fide defense is that the Defendants were a bona fide beneficiary, since the Defendants merely purchased the instant real estate from G in a normal manner and did not know at all the circumstances that the sales contract would prejudice the general creditors including the Plaintiff.

B) Whether a beneficiary of the relevant legal doctrine is bona fide should be reasonably determined in light of logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary, the details and motive of the act of disposal between the debtor and the beneficiary, the existence of objective data supporting that the terms and conditions of the act of disposal are normal transaction, and circumstances after the act of disposal, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da74621, Jul. 10, 2008; 200Da5015, May 8, 2001; 200Da5015, 202Da5092, etc.). Meanwhile, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the fact that the beneficiary was unaware of the fraudulent act is the beneficiary’s burden of proof, but there is no issue as to whether the beneficiary was negligent by the beneficiary’s good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da50015, Apr. 23, 2004>