1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

1. The reasons for this part of this Court’s reasoning are the same as the entry of “1. Basic Facts” in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination

A. The reason why this court is stated in this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is "2-2."

A. It is identical to the statement on whether a fraudulent act has been established, and thus, it is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant purchased the instant real estate at a price lower than its market price at the time of the instant sales contract, and did not know that the instant sales contract was a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditors of H.). As the beneficiary’s bad faith is presumed in a fraudulent act revocation lawsuit, the beneficiary is responsible for proving his/her good faith in order to be exempted from his/her liability. In this case, whether the beneficiary is bona fide or not should be determined reasonably in light of the logical rules and experience, comprehensively taking into account the following: the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary; the details of and the circumstances leading up to the act of disposal between the debtor and the beneficiary; the details and motive leading up to the act of disposal; there are no extenuating circumstances to suspect that the transaction conditions of the act were normal transaction; and the circumstances after the act of disposal; and whether there was any objective evidence to support the act of disposal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74621, Jul. 10, 2008; 2005Da15015.