Attached Form

With respect to real property listed in the list:

A. On December 31, 2012 between the Defendant and D.

2. The reasoning of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows, and the court’s reasoning with respect to this case is as follows: (a) to 3 or 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) to 6 or 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance, other than to delete 3 or 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 6 to 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance) is as stated in the corresponding part

D. D On December 13, 2012, the Defendant, the spouse, is the Defendant, as the only spouse, the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

(1) The gift agreement of this case was made by the gift of this case (hereinafter “instant donation agreement”).

(2) As to the apartment of this case on the same day, the Defendant registered the ownership transfer on the ground of the donation contract of this case as the head of Suwon District Court, Dongwon District Court, Dongwon Registry, No. 118595, Dec. 13, 2012 (hereinafter “instant transfer registration”).

(C) complete the proceedings

3. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The gist of the defense is that the Plaintiffs acquired the right to claim the return of the instant investment amount around August 27, 2014 when it became impossible to acquire the ownership of the instant business site, and around September 30, 2014, around September 30, 2014, the Plaintiffs confirmed the location of D’s property and its change.

Nevertheless, since the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit on November 6, 2017 after one year from that time, the instant lawsuit is unlawful after the exclusion period expires.

B. In the exercise of one obligee’s right of revocation, “the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for the revocation,” which is the starting point of the exclusion period, means the date when the obligee becomes aware of the requirement for obligee’s right of revocation, namely, the date when the obligor becomes aware of the fact that the obligee

In order for the creditor to be aware of the cause of revocation, it is not sufficient that the debtor simply knows that he/she conducted an act of disposal of the property, and furthermore, he/she knows the existence of specific fraudulent act and seeks the debtor to know it.