The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where a debtor’s act of reducing liability property causes or deepens the shortage of common security for general creditors, whether such act constitutes a fraudulent act subject to revocation should be determined based on whether the act ultimately constitutes an act detrimental to general creditors, by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the weight of the debtor’s entire responsible property in the context of a fraudulent act; (b) the degree of insolvency; (c) the economic purpose of a juristic act; (d) the legitimacy and the means of realization of the juristic act; (e) reasonableness of the pertinent act, which is the means of realization; (e) the obligor and beneficiary’s awareness

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da107818, Mar. 27, 2014). Meanwhile, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act, a beneficiary is presumed to be malicious and thus, a beneficiary is liable to prove his/her good faith in order to be exempted from liability.

In such a case, whether the beneficiary acted in good faith shall be determined reasonably in light of the logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary; (b) details of and the process or motive for the act of disposal between the debtor and the beneficiary; (c) whether there are no special circumstances to doubt that the terms and conditions of the act of disposal are normal and reasonable; and (d) there

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74621, Jul. 10, 2008). Moreover, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, only the good faith of a beneficiary is at issue and whether there is negligence in good faith is not at issue.

(2) On May 8, 2001, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, cannot be deemed as an act of undermining general creditors.