1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff, the cause of the claim, has C’s loans worth KRW 200,000,000.

C had completed the registration of ownership transfer under the sales contract with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”), which is the only property in fact only in excess of debt.

This constitutes a fraudulent act with knowledge that it would prejudice creditors as an act of reducing the joint security of general creditors, and the defendant's bad faith as a beneficiary is presumed also presumed.

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to cancel the sale contract of the real estate of this case and to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership, and even if it is not so, he is responsible for compensating for the amount equivalent to the preliminary value.

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

In such a case, whether the beneficiary acted in good faith shall be determined reasonably in light of logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary, the details of and the background and motive for the act of disposal between the debtor and the beneficiary, the transaction terms and conditions of the act of disposal are normal and reasonable, and there are no special circumstances to suspect them, and there are objective materials to support them

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74621, Jul. 10, 2008) The Defendant asserts that the instant real estate is a bona fide beneficiary, as there is no awareness that it would prejudice the general creditors of C at the time of entering into a sales contract. The following circumstances acknowledged by the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 10 and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the Defendant was unaware of C before purchasing the instant real estate, and was unaware of C’s obligation to the Plaintiff.