The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the primary claim, the lower court, at the latest around October 4, 2010, determined that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of the said fraudulent act was filed after the lapse of the exclusion period of one year thereafter, and was unlawful, since it was filed after the lapse of the exclusion period of one year thereafter.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In doing so, the court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the starting point of the exclusion period.

2. On the grounds of its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that: (a) the provision of Article 23 of the Act on Representation is insufficient to recognize the contract as a contract for a third party whose beneficiary is the Plaintiff; (b) the term “public charges and public charges on trust property” under Article 23 of the Act on Representation is merely the public charges and public charges imposed on the trustee in relation to trust property; (c) it does not include the Plaintiff’s local tax claim imposed on the truster, and there is no evidence to support that the truster has the right to demand the Defendant to pay the local tax from the trust property; and (d) accordingly, dismissed all Plaintiff’s claim for damages and the claim for monetary payment subrogated to the truster.

Examining the record, the above determination by the court below is justifiable.

In doing so, it goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or exceeds the relevant legal principles.