배당이의
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2.The proceedings for the revocation of the fraudulent act added at the trial shall be dismissed.
3...
1. The reasoning of this court’s admitting the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s claim for the revocation of the fraudulent act added in the trial of the court of first instance is the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition under paragraph (2) below; and (b) thus
2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim for revocation of fraudulent act among the lawsuit of this case
A. The Plaintiff sought revocation of the Housing Lease Contract on the instant building concluded on June 18, 2013 between the Defendant and Nonparty D in the party trial on the ground that it constitutes a fraudulent act.
B.1) Where an obligor performs a legal act aimed at property rights with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee, the obligee may file a lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act within one year from the date of becoming aware of the cause for revocation of the fraudulent act, and five years from the date of the legal act, and such revocation of the fraudulent act can only be filed by filing a lawsuit with the court, and cannot be asserted as an attack and defense method in the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da4859, 48605, Mar. 13, 1998; 95Da8393, Jul. 25, 1995). Accordingly, the obligee’s claim for revocation of the fraudulent act by asserting that the obligee is the cause for revocation of the fraudulent act in the complaint, preparatory brief, etc. without seeking revocation of the fraudulent act, and the purport of the claim for revocation of the fraudulent act constitutes a legitimate lawsuit seeking restitution of the lease agreement with the Plaintiff on September 29, 2011.