2. As to the real estate stated in the separate sheet between the Defendant and C Co., Ltd. on June 2015

An abbreviationd name established in the judgment of the first instance is also used below the same.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. As to the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of fraudulent act, the Defendant asserted that, on August 18, 2015, the part of revocation of fraudulent act in the lawsuit in this case is unlawful because the limitation period is expired since the Plaintiff filed a provisional attachment application as to each of the instant real estate with respect to the claim for loans against the Plaintiff C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) as the preserved claim.

B. In a lawsuit seeking revocation by a creditor, it is insufficient to say that the creditor was aware of the cause for revocation merely by means of the fact that there was a juristic act of the debtor, and that such juristic act is an act prejudicial to the creditor. Thus, in a case where the creditor confirmed the existence of any other property by investigating the debtor's property status while knowing that a provisional registration has been completed for the only property of the debtor, and where a provisional seizure was made for the debtor's property, it is reasonable to deem that the creditor knew of the fact that the debtor committed a fraudulent act despite being aware of the damage to the creditor at the time of provisional seizure. However, the fact that the creditor was aware of the cause for revocation at the time of the provisional seizure application by means of a certified copy of the register attached to the

In full view of the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence Nos. 12, Eul evidence Nos. 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 31 and 32 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant's arguments are examined.