The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

A. On April 2, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the provisional disposition registration of the instant real estate. On November 3, 2010, the Plaintiff had already completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the Defendant’s name. However, on April 2, 2014, the Plaintiff was aware of B’s fraudulent act. Thus, the instant lawsuit filed for one year after the lapse of the exclusion period is unlawful as it exceeds the exclusion period.

B. Determination 1) The “date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation” in the exercise of the obligee’s right of revocation refers to the date when the obligee becomes aware of the obligee’s knowledge of the requirement for obligee’s right of revocation, i.e., the date when the obligee becomes aware of the obligor’s fraudulent act while being aware that the obligor would prejudice the obligee. Thus, the mere fact that the obligor was aware of the act of disposal of the obligor’s property is insufficient, that is, the juristic act is an act detrimental to the obligee. i.e., the obligor’s act of disposal of the obligee’s property is not sufficient to satisfy the obligee’s claim as a whole due to the shortage of joint collateral or lack of joint collateral, and the obligor’s intent to harm the obligee. However, the obligee does not have to know about the obligor’s bad faith. In addition, if the obligee had confirmed the establishment of a mortgage in the name of a third party on certain real estate during the process of taking measures against the obligor’s property in comparison with the total amount of his/her claim, it is reasonable to view that the obligor was aware of other circumstances.