beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
3. The total cost of the lawsuit.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination
A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the occurrence of a preserved claim, C’s insolvency, the establishment of a fraudulent act, and C’s intent of amnesty is as follows: (a) the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 4 and 18, 9, and 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance) is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, it
B. Determination 1 on a bona fide beneficiary defense 1) The Defendants’ defenses by the Defendants constitute a bona fide beneficiary since they were unaware of the fact that each of the above sales contracts exceeds C’s obligations at the time of each of the instant disposal acts or harms the general creditors of C including the Plaintiff. (2) Determination A) is presumed to be a beneficiary’s bad faith in a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act. Therefore, the beneficiaries are responsible for proving their good faith in order to be exempted from their responsibilities. In such a case, whether the Defendants acted in good faith should be determined in light of the logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the relationship between the obligor and the beneficiary, the details of and the background or motive behind the act of disposal between the obligor and the beneficiary, the circumstances leading up to the act of disposal, there are no special circumstances to doubt that the terms and conditions of the act of disposal are normal transaction, and the circumstances after the act of disposal, etc.
7. In full view of the entries of evidence Nos. 7 through 10, 19, and 20 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the testimony of the witness C of the first instance trial, the Seoul regional tax office's Seongbuk tax office's testimony is about the whole purport of the pleadings.