The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. On the ground of appeal No. 1, based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity can be the preserved claim for revocation of the instant fraudulent act, on the ground that there was a high probability as to the conclusion of the instant credit guarantee agreement and the joint and several liability contract under B, which serves as the basis for establishing the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity at the time of establishing the instant mortgage contract, and that the said claim for indemnity was established in

Examining the records in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s recognition and judgment are justifiable.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of preserved claims.

Other argument in the grounds of appeal is a new argument in the final appeal, and thus cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that “B, the representative director of A, was the best method by which B, who is a corporation, would have the ability to repay the debt to continue its business by financing funds from the Defendant, and this does not constitute a fraudulent act as it concluded the instant mortgage agreement.”

Examining the records in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s recognition and judgment are justifiable.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of fraudulent act.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal have different cases and are not appropriate to be invoked in this case.

3. As to the third ground for appeal, the beneficiary has the burden of proving that the beneficiary was unaware of the fraudulent act in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act.