1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 25, 2015, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 100 million to Nonparty C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) on September 22, 2016 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd”). At the time, B set the maximum guarantee amount as KRW 120 million and jointly guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to Nonparty Co., Ltd... (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd”).

B. On June 1, 2016, B donated the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant.

C. On June 21, 2016, upon receiving a request for a substitute loan to extend the repayment period from the non-party company, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 100 million to the non-party company on June 20, 2021 (hereinafter “second loan”). At the time, B set the guarantee limit amount at KRW 120 million to the non-party company’s debt to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that Eul's act of donation of the real estate in this case to the defendant constitutes a fraudulent act, and sought revocation and compensation for the equivalent amount of KRW 103,336,450. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the lawsuit in this case was unlawful since the creditor, who is the exclusion period in the exercise of the right of revocation, filed a lawsuit in this case after the lapse of one year from the date on which the creditor

In the exercise of 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 requirements for creditor's right of revocation, that is, the date when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that he would prejudice the creditor. Thus, it is insufficient for the mere fact that the debtor committed a act of disposal of the property is insufficient, and that the juristic act constitutes an act detrimental to the creditor, i.e., the lack of joint security of the claim or the lack of joint security already occurred.