사해행위취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B as Seoul Central District Court 2010Kahap75216, and the above court rendered a judgment on June 24, 2011 that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 56,35,59 won and 555,755,053 won among them, 15% per annum from April 28, 2010 to August 3, 2010; and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive thereafter.
B. On December 22, 2014, the Defendant, who is the wife B, paid the sale price in lots by acquiring D Apartments and E (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from Sejong Special Self-Governing City from C for KRW 369,00,000,000. On June 2, 2017, with respect to the instant apartment, the registration of the ownership transfer of the instant apartment was completed on June 2, 2017. On the same day, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the name of F Co., Ltd. with respect to the instant apartment as KRW 110,00,000 was completed.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap No. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense
A. The Defendant’s main defense of safety was that the apartment house of this case was prepared by the Defendant by selling the house of the second floor in Seo-gu, Daejeon, which was previously owned by the Defendant, and there was no donation from B. However, even if the Defendant received a donation from B at the time of 2012, the lawsuit of this case was already filed five years after the lawsuit of this case, and the Plaintiff was aware that the donation of B was constituted a fraudulent act before one year from the date of the lawsuit of this case. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it was filed after the exclusion period expired.
B. According to Article 406(2) of the Civil Act, a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act shall be filed within one year from the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause of revocation and within five years from the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause of revocation. The obligee’s “the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause