beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. As to the real estate stated in the separate sheet between the Defendant and B, October 13, 2016.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment in this part concerning the facts and the cause of a claim is as follows: (a) the second 12-party 2 of the judgment of the first instance judgment “the instant real estate” is “real estate recorded in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”); and (b) the second 18-19-party 2 is “5,845,780 won for C’s loan obligation of KRW 885,107” and “59,845,780 for KRW 55,780”, except for the case where “59,845,780,” respectively, the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance is identical to the corresponding part (from the second 7-party 7 to the third 3-party 3). Therefore, it is cited in accordance
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant could not respond to the plaintiff's claim since the contract of this case was not known as a fraudulent act.
B. In determining 1 creditor’s revocation of a fraudulent act, seeking revocation of a legal act with the debtor against the beneficiary, and seeking revocation of a subsequent purchase act against the subsequent purchaser, the subsequent purchaser’s malicious intent means the perception that the legal act between the debtor and the beneficiary would prejudice the creditor at the time of the subsequent purchase, that is, the objective requirements for the fraudulent act.
On the other hand, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, there is a burden of proving the debtor's bad faith, but the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser is not a creditor with the burden of proving that the debtor's bad faith is not a bad faith, but a beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser is a bona fide person. If the debtor's act of disposal of the property constitutes a fraudulent act, it shall be based on objective and acceptable evidence, etc., and only on the unilateral statement of the debtor or the beneficiary or the third party, the subsequent purchaser was acting in good faith at the time of the fraudulent act or the subsequent purchase.