1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

As to this case, this court's acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be accepted in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the grounds that this court's rejection of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the statement in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the entry of "the part of the defendants' good faith defense and judgment" from 14th to 15th end of the judgment of the court of first instance, as argued by the Defendants.

C. The Defendants’ assertion 1) The summary of the Defendants’ assertion is that the Defendants received claims under each of the instant payment orders from N and received KRW 245,565,376 on September 28, 2012 from N and Defendant M and Defendant M received KRW 62,766,229 on October 4, 2012. This does not constitute a fraudulent act as repayment according to the nature of the obligations. Furthermore, the Defendants did not have any connection with N and received claims from N and received reimbursement as above, and did not know that N were other creditors. In a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act, the Defendants did not bear any burden of proving that they were acting in good faith, but are responsible for proving that they were the beneficiaries. In other words, if a debtor’s act of disposal of assets falls under a fraudulent act, the Defendants’ act should not be presumed to have been performed in good faith or in bad faith, and thus, the Defendants’ act should not be presumed to have been performed by either of the beneficiaries or beneficiaries at the time of the fraudulent Act.