Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

A. C is a contractor who has concluded each insurance contract listed in the separate sheet between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. On October 13, 2016, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 15,000,000 to C as of October 13, 2017 and the interest rate of KRW 7.6% per annum.

C. On June 15, 2017, C concluded a contract with the Defendant to change the contractor of the instant insurance contract into the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant modified contract”). [Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 10, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

A. The gist of the assertion is that the instant amendment contract is a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is a creditor of C, and the instant lawsuit seeking its revocation and restitution is unlawful even with the exclusion period exceeding one year after the Plaintiff, who is the creditor, becomes aware of the cause of revocation.

B. Determination 1) A creditor's revocation lawsuit shall be filed within one year from the date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause for revocation (Article 406 (2) of the Civil Act). Here, "the date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause for revocation" means the date when the creditor becomes aware of the requirements for creditor's right of revocation, that is, the date when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor committed a fraudulent act while being aware of the fact that the debtor harmed the creditor. Thus, it is insufficient to say that the legal act is an act that causes damage to the creditor. In other words, it is necessary to know that the legal act is an act that causes a shortage in the joint security of the claim or lack in the joint security in the situation where the creditor is insufficient, and that the debtor was aware of the intent to cause damage to the creditor. In light of the above legal principles, evidence as seen earlier, including Supreme Court Decisions 201Da1239 Decided November 26, 2002; 203Da19435 Decided 11, 2003).