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

A. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case refers to the date on which the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligee knew of the cause of revocation, i.e., when the obligee knew of the fact that the obligee had committed a fraudulent act knowing that the obligee had committed a disposal act of the property, which was entered into on November 8, 2012, on the ground that the mortgage contract was concluded on the ground that it was fraudulent act. Thus, the obligee’s act of disposal of the property, such as the lawsuit of this case, was denied, and the obligee’s revocation lawsuit, which affected the change in the right, should be filed within one year from the date of becoming aware of the cause of revocation (Article 406(2) of the Civil Act). The obligee, which was the starting point of the limitation period in exercising the obligee’s right of revocation, is the date on which the obligee knew of the fact that the obligor had committed a disposal act of the property. In other words, it is insufficient to say that the obligee’s act was prejudicial to the obligee, and it is not sufficient to know that the subsequent purchaser had knowledge of the obligation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da82384, Jan. 12, 2012). B.

Judgment

(1) The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

㈎ 원고는 2010. 8. 9. 주식회사 선일기업과 사이에 신용보증원금 170,000,000원, 보증기한 2013. 8. 8.로 하는 신용보증약정을 체결하였고, B은 주식회사 선일기업이 위 신용보증약정에 따라 원고에 대하여 부담하는 채무에 관하여...