2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On March 21, 2008, B did not pay capital gains tax when transferring the right of sale under Article 1202 of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government No. 1202 to D on March 21, 2008, and the Plaintiff determined and notified capital gains tax of KRW 235,440,000 as the due date for payment on March 2, 2009 to B.

B. Meanwhile, on August 5, 2008, B donated the instant real estate owned by the Defendant, who was the wife, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with the Busan District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office received 39989 on the same day.

C. On July 23, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the above gift to the Defendant B was a fraudulent act to harm the Plaintiff and filed the instant lawsuit seeking its revocation and restitution.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8, 9, 10, 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. (1) Since the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) investigated the property B’s claim and made a disposition of deficits on April 17, 2009, the Plaintiff should be deemed to have known the existence of the fraudulent act at the time of the disposition of deficits and the grounds for its revocation.

Therefore, the suit for revocation of the fraudulent act filed on July 23, 2013, which was one year after the lapse of one year thereafter, should be dismissed as unlawful.

(2) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff did not know of the existence of a fraudulent act at the time of the disposal of deficit, as the Plaintiff confirmed only whether the Plaintiff owned property B and confirmed that there was no property, and thus, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of a fraudulent act and the intention of deception only during the process of investigating the arrears of B at the Busan Regional Tax Office’s tracking Team on the hidden property of Busan Regional Tax Office in March 2013.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case was filed within one year from that time, the exclusion period of the fraudulent act revocation lawsuit was observed.

B. The period for exercising the creditor's right of revocation under Article 406 (2) of the Civil Code is the period for filing a lawsuit.