1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The reasoning of the first instance judgment is reasonable, and this applies to the examination of the evidence submitted by the appellate court in addition to the evidence submitted by the first instance court. Thus, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the reasoning of the first instance judgment is cited on the ground of this judgment, and the lower court added the judgment on the main argument that the Defendant

The Plaintiff asserts that the registration of the establishment of multiple plans for the establishment of a mortgage, the registration of the entry of the decision on commencement of auction, and the entry of the decision on provisional seizure was made in the registry of the instant real estate at a price lower than the market price, and thereafter the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Defendant only for a week, and that the Defendant cannot be recognized as having acted in good faith at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, in light of the circumstances where the Defendant, while concluding the contract to re-sale the instant real estate

Since the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed in a fraudulent act revocation lawsuit, the beneficiary is responsible for proving his good faith in order to be exempted from his responsibility.

The issue of the beneficiary's good faith shall be determined reasonably in light of the logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary; (b) the details of and the background or motive for the act of disposal between the debtor and the beneficiary; (c) there are no special circumstances to doubt that the terms and conditions of the act of disposal are normal and reasonable; and (d) there are objective materials supporting

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74621 Decided July 10, 2008, etc.). Moreover, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, only whether a beneficiary’s good faith is an issue and whether a beneficiary was negligent in the beneficiary’s good faith is not an issue (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da5015, May 8, 2001). In addition, the first instance judgment cited for the foregoing reasons.