1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).

As a result of examining the legitimacy of the judgment of the court of first instance by examining the grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance and the evidence submitted by the parties, the court's explanation about this case is "2. Judgment"

C. The part of the Defendant’s good faith and the “4. Conclusion” is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following parts: thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part of the judgment of the first instance, which was modified, is “2.”

C. In a case where the debtor's assets are in excess of the debt that is insufficient to repay the whole debt, if the debtor provided the real estate owned by him as security for the claim against the defendant, who is a specific creditor, and completed the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage, the defendant would be entitled to preferential repayment than other creditors. Therefore, the creditors' joint security is reduced within the scope of this, and the other creditors are in a more unfavorable position than the previous creditors. Thus, it constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff's interests.

On the other hand, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed if the legal act against a third party constitutes a fraudulent act objectively. Therefore, the beneficiary is responsible to prove that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of such legal act.

In recognition of the fact that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of such fraudulent act, objective and acceptable evidence, etc. should be supported, and it should not be readily concluded that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of such fraudulent act by only the obligor’s unilateral statement or a statement that is merely a third party’s abstract statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da61280, Jul. 4, 2006). The following circumstances recognized by the purport of the evidence No. 3-1 and 2 as well as the entire arguments, namely, the Defendant’s loan amounting to KRW 100,000 against the representative director B of the Dispute Settlement Bank Co., Ltd. around July 7, 2017 and September 2017.