The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the preserved claim, the lower court determined that the deceased’s claim for consolation money of KRW 30 million against C and the claim for restitution of KRW 100 million may be the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation.

Although the above judgment of the court below is somewhat inappropriate in its reasoning, the court below's conclusion that the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money and the claim for restitution inherited from the deceased can be the preserved claim of this case is justified.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the relevant legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The Supreme Court precedents in the grounds of appeal are different from the case so that it is inappropriate to invoke the case in this case.

2. As to the grounds of appeal relating to the period of exclusion, the "date when the obligee becomes aware of the grounds of revocation" means the date when the obligee becomes aware of the requirements of the obligee's right of revocation, that is, the date when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act while being aware of the fact that the obligee would prejudice

Therefore, it is insufficient for the creditor to know that the debtor merely conducted the act of disposal of the property, and it is also difficult for the creditor to fully satisfy the claim due to the deficiency in the joint security of the claim or the lack of joint security already in a short state due to the fact that the juristic act was prejudicial to the creditor, and the fact that the debtor had an intent to cause harm to the debtor.

In addition, it cannot be presumed that the reason for revocation was known because it was known of the objective facts of the fraudulent act.