The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that it was highly probable that the Plaintiff’s claim would have been created in the near future at the time when a sales contract between B and the Defendant was concluded.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a preserved claim in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds

2. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that it was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was bona fide at the time of the sales contract, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge

In light of the records, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the recognition of beneficiary's bad faith, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and the court below's assertion disputing the preparation of evidence and fact-finding cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

3. On the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that, even if it is acknowledged that B used part of the purchase price received from the Defendant as a debt repayment, etc. to other creditors, the sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act, and that part of the purchase price paid KRW 80 million should be deducted from compensation for value.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the establishment of fraudulent act or the scope of compensation for value, or by violating the rules of evidence.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.