사해행위취소
1. The contract of donation concluded on July 30, 2012 between the Defendant and B shall be revoked.
2...
1. Basic facts
A. A. Around June 27, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired the claim against B from Hanman Entertainment Co., Ltd., and filed an application for payment order against B with the Seoul District Court No. 2008 tea7190, and B paid to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 15,360,134 and the amount of KRW 8,03,159, calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from September 19, 2008 to the date of full payment. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21004, Nov. 4, 2008>
B. B around July 31, 2012, completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the donation on the 30th day of the same month (hereinafter “the instant donation contract”) with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), which is the only property, on or around July 31, 2012. The officially announced value of the instant real estate is KRW 3,313,376 as of July 2012.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant donation contract was a fraudulent act, and the Defendant sought revocation and restitution thereof, the Defendant asserts that, around July 31, 2012, the Plaintiff had known such circumstances at the time of completing the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant real estate, the instant lawsuit filed one year after the lapse of the exclusion period, is unlawful, since it exceeds the exclusion period.
However, in the exercise of the creditor's right of revocation, the "date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause of revocation" means the date when the creditor becomes aware of the requirement of the creditor's right of revocation, that is, the date when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor had committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that the creditor would prejudice the creditor. Thus, it is insufficient to simply say that the debtor conducted a disposal of the property, and the juristic act is an act detrimental to the creditor, which causes a shortage in the joint security of the claim or has already been insufficient.