사해행위취소 등
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The reasons for the entry of this case by the court in this case are as follows: “Witness L testimony” in Part 4 and 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be “each testimony of the witness L” in Part 6, 4 and 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and the part claimed by the Defendants in the court of first instance shall be as stated in the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the following judgments as to the part claimed by the Defendants in the court of first instance. Thus, it shall
2. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s repayment period of the Plaintiff’s loan claim against G was against May 27, 2009, and the Plaintiff was also aware of the criminal case against G, and that on April 11, 2013, the filing date of the lawsuit was one year after the Plaintiff became aware of the Plaintiff’s fraudulent act, and that the lawsuit in this case was unlawful since it was filed after the lapse of the exclusion period.
In the exercise of the right of revocation, the "date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause for revocation" means the date when the creditor becomes aware of the requirements for the right of revocation, that is, the date when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that he would prejudice the creditor. Thus, it is insufficient to say that the debtor merely knows that he/she committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that he/she conducted a disposal act of the property, and it is necessary to inform the debtor of the fact that the juristic act is an act detrimental to the creditor, that it is not sufficient to fully satisfy the claim due to the lack of joint security of the claim or the lack of joint security already in the short situation, and that he/she had the intent to harm the debtor. Furthermore, it is difficult to presume that the debtor knew of the objective fact of the fraudulent act, and that the burden of proof as to the lapse
(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da5855 Decided April 26, 2013). In relation to the foregoing, the Plaintiff is bound to make a certified copy of the register on November 2012.