As to this, the defendant asserts that the lawsuit of revocation of fraudulent act of this case filed one year after the date when the plaintiff became aware of the cause of revocation by inquiring about the debtor's property for a certain period of time, is unlawful, even though the exclusion period under Article 406 (2) of the Civil Code is exceeded.

In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 4, the fact that the plaintiff first conducted an investigation as to whether the real estate in this case was C owned on October 10, 2018 can be acknowledged.

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff came to know that the instant gift contract was concluded on the instant real estate only after October 2018.

On the other hand, there is no reason to deem that the Plaintiff had the authority or method to regularly inquire about the debtor's property.

Since the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit within one year from October 10, 2018, which became aware of the fact that the instant gift contract was concluded, the Plaintiff’s exercise of the Plaintiff’s right of revocation complies with the exclusion period under Article 406(2) of the Civil Act.

The defendant's above main defense is not acceptable.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. Fact-finding 1) On November 6, 1995, the Plaintiff concluded a guarantee insurance contract with the effect that the Plaintiff guarantees the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay for the installment purchase money to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant guarantee insurance contract”). 2) The insurance accident under the instant guarantee insurance contract occurred on September 19, 196, and the Plaintiff was the insured Co., Ltd. on April 1, 1997. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 15087, Oct. 20, 1995; Presidential Decree No. 15083, Oct. 1997; Presidential Decree No. 15097, Sep. 1997.