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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that 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. Additional determination as to the grounds for appeal (as to the assertion that he/she was unaware of the fraudulent act)

A. In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the obligor has the burden of proving that the obligor is maliciously, but the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is not a creditor with the burden of proving that the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is maliciously, but a beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is a bona fide person.

In cases where an obligor’s act of disposing of property constitutes a fraudulent act, evidence, etc. that may be objectively and objectively satisfied when recognizing that the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser was bona fide at the time of the said fraudulent act or the preceding purchase shall not be readily concluded solely on the basis of either the obligor or beneficiary’s unilateral statement or a statement that is merely a third party’s abstract statement, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da237192, Jun. 11, 2015).

In this case, the evidence presented by the defendant alone is insufficient to view that the defendant was unaware of the fraudulent act.

Rather, in full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was aware that C was transferring the instant real estate to the Defendant in excess of its obligation, taking into account the witness testimony of the first instance court C and the fact-finding conducted by the head of the Daegu Metropolitan City north-gu and the head of the Seocho-gu Office of the court of first instance, based on

1) The Defendant alleged that he lent C money exceeding KRW 300 million for a period exceeding 10 years, but there was no loan certificate between the Defendant and C. 2) Even if the Defendant’s assertion is based on the Defendant’s assertion, C shall pay approximately KRW 300 million for a period exceeding 10 years from the Defendant.