The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the court below acknowledged the fact that the employee of the Korea Scardd Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Scard Co., Ltd.”) (hereinafter “debtor”) indicated “the owner A, and the property free of property of the borrower” in the column of November 9, 2011 among the business areas prepared by the employee of the Korea Scard Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Scard Co., Ltd.”) in charge of the management of claims against B (hereinafter “debtor”), and determined that the lawsuit of this case brought before the Plaintiff on Feb. 6, 2013, which was instituted after the expiration of the limitation period of revocation lawsuit, is unlawful, since the above facts indicate that “the current owner of the property owned by the debtor as a result of the investigation, is the defendant, and the debtor is currently not holding any specific property at present.” As such, the non-party bank, at the latest around November 9, 2011, was aware that the debtor sold the instant real property, its sole property to the Defendant and constitutes a fraudulent act.

However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

In the exercise of the right of revocation, the "date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause for revocation" is insufficient simply by the fact that the debtor conducts the act of disposal of the property. In other words, it is necessary to know that the legal act is an act detrimental to the creditor. In short, it is impossible to fully satisfy the claim because the joint security of the claim is insufficient or the joint security already insufficient is more deficient than one story, and that the debtor had the intention of deception (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da40286, Dec. 12, 2003; 2006Da46483, Nov. 9, 2006).