The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, it is difficult to find that the circumstance alleged by the Defendant in the appellate brief or the data submitted by the court of final appeal alone were aware of the cause of revocation from one year prior to the date of filing the instant lawsuit, and even after examining the records, there is no evidence to suspect it.

Therefore, even if the court below did not ex officio examine additional evidence to determine whether the period of one-year lawsuit under Article 406(2) of the Civil Act has lapsed, it cannot be said that there were either errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the lapse of the period of exclusion in exercising the right of revocation, or by omitting judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the third ground for appeal

A. In a case where the debtor’s act of reducing liability property causes or deepens the shortage of common security for general creditors, whether the act constitutes a fraudulent act subject to revocation should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the importance of the debtor’s entire responsible property in relation to the subject matter of revocation; (b) whether the subject matter is insolvent; (c) legitimacy of the economic purpose of the juristic act; (d) reasonableness of the act in question, which is the means of its realization; (e) the reasonableness of the act in question; and (e) the degree of perception

However, the act of a debtor, in excess of his/her obligation, may be a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, but even in such a case, the above act is ultimately conducted in light of the general judgment criteria as seen above.