1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. C operated a self-factory with the trade name of “F” in E and B, and entered into a contract to transfer a security agreement with the Plaintiff on April 29, 2010 with respect to the A-Ma listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant A-Ma”) in order to secure KRW 100 million on credit payment from the Plaintiff.

B. On March 9, 2011, C entered into a contract with the Defendant to sell the instant horse in KRW 100 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 8, 9 (including additional numbers), Eul's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant sales contract of this case should be revoked as a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is the obligee, in excess of the obligation of C, and the Defendant is obligated to deliver C the instant horse to C due to its restitution.

3. Determination on this safety defense

A. Since the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit only one year after he/she became aware of the fact that the instant sales contract was a fraudulent act, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as its exclusion period expires.

B. 1) The "date when the creditor, which is the starting point of the exclusion period, becomes aware of the ground for revocation" in the exercise of the right to revoke means the date when the creditor becomes aware of the requirements for the right to revoke, that is, the date when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor had committed a fraudulent act while being aware of the fact that the debtor would prejudice the creditor. Thus, the mere fact that the debtor conducted a disposal act of the property is insufficient to say that such a juristic act constitutes an act detrimental to the creditor. In other words, it is required that the creditor could not fully satisfy the claim due to the lack of joint security of the claim or the lack of joint security already in the short situation, and further, it is necessary to know the fact that the debtor had an intent to harm the creditor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da11239, Nov. 26, 2002).