1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and such reasoning is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the entry by the following:

2. The entry shall be made by adding the number of pages 4 to 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance in part as follows:

Whether a person asserts a fraudulent act has an intent to harm other creditors in collusion with some of the creditors in this case ought to be established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74621, Jul. 10, 2008). In addition, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, whether a beneficiary is bona fide or not shall be reasonably determined in light of the logical rules and experience, by comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary; (b) the details of or motive for the act of disposal between the debtor and the beneficiary; (c) the circumstances leading up to the act of disposal; (d) whether there is any special circumstance to suspect that the terms and conditions of the act of disposal are normal transaction; and (e) whether there is any objective evidence supporting the act of disposal; and (e) the circumstances after the act of disposal, etc., whether a beneficiary was negligent or not (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74621, Jul. 10, 2008).

Furthermore, even if the assignment contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, in full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff, the beneficiary, is deemed to have concluded the instant assignment contract with the safety elevator company in good faith.

(1) Safety elevators.