[2] The case holding that the creditor cannot be deemed to have known of the cause of revocation at the time of the application for provisional attachment on the ground that the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the beneficiary was completed on the copy of the register attached at the time of the application for provisional attachment

[2] The case holding that the creditor cannot be deemed to have known of the cause of revocation at the time of the application for provisional seizure on the ground that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the beneficiary was completed on the copy of the register attached at the time of the application for provisional seizure on the

Since a creditor's revocation lawsuit must be filed within one year from the date on which the creditor becomes aware of the cause for revocation (Article 406 (2) of the Civil Act), it is not sufficient to say that there was a legal act of the debtor simply in order to understand that there was a cause for revocation, and that the legal act is an act detrimental to the creditor. In other words, it should be known that the legal act is an act that causes a shortage of joint security of the claim or a lack of joint security already in the state of shortage, making it impossible to fully satisfy the claim (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da53704 delivered on February 25, 200).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found, based on its adopted evidence, that the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the defendant was completed on May 21, 1997 on the copy of the register of the real estate of this case attached when the plaintiff applied for provisional attachment of this case on June 21, 1997, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the plaintiff was the sole property of the non-party who is the debtor at the time of the above provisional attachment application, and that the non-party and the defendant had concluded the above mortgage contract concerning the real estate of this case with the intention to harm the creditor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the court below determined that the safety objection of the defendant, which was based on the premise that the plaintiff had already been aware of the cause of revocation of fraudulent act on or before August 3, 1998, which was the date of the lawsuit of this case, was not reasonable.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are deemed to be correct, and there is no error of misconception of facts or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in violation of the rules of evidence. The grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)