1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant D, the part against which the following revocation and payment order is against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. Defendant E argues to the effect that the sales contract for the instant housing, etc. between C and Defendant E is not a fraudulent act, as the sales price paid by it was used for the repayment of the obligation to the general creditors of A and C. However, even if the use of the above sales price was the same, the act of selling the said housing, etc. to Defendant E, who is the general creditors, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the interests of other creditors, including the Plaintiff, even though it is not sufficient to fully repay the obligation to the general creditors with the sales price, since the sale of the said housing, etc. to Defendant E constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the interests of other creditors including the Plaintiff. The above argument is not acceptable, and since the part at the end of the 8th judgment of the court of first instance was written as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance other than the first instance as set forth in the following paragraph (2).

2. The summary of the defense of Defendant D’s bona fide defense is a bona fide beneficiary, since Defendant D only purchased the instant apartment from Defendant D in a normal manner and did not know all the circumstances that the sales contract would prejudice the general creditors including the Plaintiff.

B) In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the fact that the beneficiary was unaware of the fact that he/she was a fraudulent act is the burden of proof to himself/herself. In such a case, the fact that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act ought to be supported by objective and acceptable evidence, etc., and only a unilateral statement of the debtor or a statement that is merely a third party’s abstract statement, etc., that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act should not be readily concluded (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5710, Apr. 14, 2006). Whether the beneficiary was bona fide or bona fide is the debtor.