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 court's explanation concerning this case is as follows. Defendant D, as a genuine creditor of the judgment of the court of first instance, asserts that the contract of this case was concluded for the security of the above claim and completed the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer of each of the above real estate, and C did not know that it exceeded its obligation at the time. Since the beneficiary's bad faith was presumed in the revocation lawsuit, the beneficiary is presumed to have been responsible for proving his good faith. In order to recognize that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of fraudulent act, evidence, etc. should be based on objective and intentional payment, etc.; in order to conclude that the beneficiary was not aware that it was bona fide at the time of fraudulent act, Defendant D did not conclude that it was not a bona fide beneficiary's right to claim ownership transfer of the above real estate under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da2714715 delivered on May 27, 2012).

It is insufficient to view that the above purchase and sale reservation and provisional registration were not aware that they harm the joint security of other general creditors, including the plaintiff, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant is a bona fide beneficiary.

Rather, even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant: (a) concluded the instant promise and completed the registration of ownership transfer claim as it did not fully repay the loan amounting to KRW 660 million; and (b) as seen earlier, C is the Defendant.