1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On March 5, 2015, the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “C”) had a bill payment claim equivalent to KRW 2,284,825,707, which was finalized by the payment order issued by the Busan District Court on March 5, 2015, and a bill payment claim equivalent to the delay damages.

B. C entered into an agreement with the Defendant on December 16, 2014 on the transfer of the contractual status of each construction contract as a contractor for each construction contract entered in the separate sheet and entered into a contract with the Defendant on the transfer of the contractual status of each construction contract, and thereafter the Defendant continued to complete each construction contract.

C. C’s conclusion of each of the above bonds transfer contracts is a fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff, the obligee.

Therefore, this shall be revoked, and the defendant shall return 100 million won out of the price received after completing each of the above construction works to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

(a) A lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act shall be brought within one year from the date the creditor becomes aware of the grounds for revocation;

(See Article 406(2) of the Civil Act. “The date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation”, which is the starting point of the exclusion period, refers to the date when the obligee becomes aware of the requirement for obligee’s right of revocation, namely, the date when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor committed a fraudulent

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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da272311, Apr. 10, 2018). B.

On May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into each of the above claims transfer contracts between C and the Defendant with Busan District Court 2015Kahap4185.