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
[Claim]
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is as stated in Paragraph (1) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the relevant part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
ARTICLE 1-
A. (1) “As of February 19, 2019,” the first instance court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of and restitution to the original state on each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 3, and rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, 4, and 5, and only the Defendant appealed, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the Plaintiff’s claim on each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and 3.
2. Judgment on the main defense of this case
A. On June 2016, the Plaintiff became aware that the existence of the instant mortgage contract at the time of the instant provisional attachment and the instant mortgage contract constituted a fraudulent act. As such, the instant lawsuit filed on April 25, 2018 after the lapse of one year and ten months from the date of the instant provisional attachment is unlawful as the period of exclusion expires.
B. In the exercise of the obligee’s right of revocation, “the date when the obligee became aware of the cause for the revocation,” which is the starting point of the exclusion period, refers to the date when the obligee became aware of the requirement for the obligee’s right of revocation, i.e., the date when the obligor
In order for the creditor to be aware of the cause of revocation, it is not sufficient that the debtor simply knows that he/she conducted an act of disposal of property, and it is also necessary to know the existence of specific fraudulent act and to know the fact that he/she had the intent to harm the debtor.
If the objective facts of the fraudulent act were known, it cannot be presumed that the reason for revocation was known, and the burden of proof as to the lapse of the limitation period lies on the other party to the lawsuit for revocation of the fraudulent act.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Da272311 Decided April 10, 2018, supra.