2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty C and the Defendant for the claim for the payment of the goods amounting to KRW 2018da22919. On April 22, 2019, the said court rendered a ruling to recommend settlement that “The Plaintiff waives the claim against the Defendant, and Nonparty C shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 40 million up to December 31, 2019, but if so, the amount shall be the principal amount of KRW 45 million, not KRW 40 million, and damages for delay shall be paid at the rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 1, 2020 to the date of full payment.” The said ruling to recommend settlement was finalized on May 8, 2019.

B. On August 24, 2017, the Defendant entered into a sales contract for the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with Nonparty C, and on the same day, registered the ownership transfer of the said real estate (hereinafter “instant transfer”).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The instant sales contract concluded between the Plaintiff’s assertion and Nonparty C constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the obligee, and thus, the said sales contract should be revoked, and the registration of transfer of ownership in this case should be revoked due to its restitution.

3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. The "date when the creditor, which is the starting point of the exclusion period under Article 406 (2) of the Civil Code, becomes aware of the cause of revocation" means the date when the creditor becomes aware of the requirement of the creditor's 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 the creditor would prejudice the creditor. In order to say that the creditor was aware of the cause of revocation, it is insufficient to say that the debtor merely knew of the fact that the debtor conducted a disposal of the property, and furthermore, it is necessary to know that the creditor had known of the existence of a specific fraudulent act, and furthermore, he/she had the intent to know