beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "205,743,298 won (= KRW 130,785,480, KRW 480, KRW 41,235, KRW 40,000)" of the first instance court No. 5, No. 19 of the first instance court's judgment "205,743,298 won (= KRW 130,785, KRW 480, KRW 34,957, KRW 818, KRW 40,000)," and the decision as to the exclusion period and argument from the first instance court No. 412 to KRW 15 of the first instance court's judgment shall be cited as it is, in addition to adding the following judgments as to the matters asserted by the defendant in the first instance court, as well as adding them to the corresponding part, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[In the exercise of the creditor's 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 existence of the requirement for the creditor's right of revocation, i.e., 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. Thus, it is not sufficient that the debtor merely knew of the fact that the debtor conducted a disposal act of the property, and it is necessary to inform the debtor of the fact that the legal act was insufficient to fully satisfy the claim due to the lack of joint security of the claim or lack of joint security in the situation where the creditor would harm the creditor, and further, it is necessary to inform the debtor of the fact that the debtor had known of the objective fact of the fraudulent act, and the burden of proof as to the lapse of the limitation period is the party to the creditor's right of revocation.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da5855, Apr. 26, 2013). The Defendant’s execution of seizure of C-owned corporeal movables is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was aware of the requirements for the obligee’s right of revocation at that time, and the instant lawsuit was filed one year after the date on which the Plaintiff became aware of the grounds for revocation otherwise.