1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the first instance court’s reasoning, except for the addition or dismissal as stated in paragraph (2) below, and therefore, it shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2.In addition or dismissal of any part of the judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added to the fifth page of the judgment of the first instance:

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case brought after the lapse of the exclusion period of one year is unlawful, since it is deemed that the plaintiff was aware of the excess of C's obligation when the creditor council was held on March 15, 2011.

However, in the exercise of the creditor's right of revocation, the "date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause of revocation" means the date when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor committed a fraudulent act while knowing that the creditor would prejudice the creditor, that is, the date when the creditor becomes aware of the requirement of the creditor's right of revocation. 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 know that the legal act was insufficient to fully satisfy the claims due to the lack of joint security of claims or lack of joint security in the situation where the creditor would harm the creditor, and that the debtor had an intent to harm the creditor. Furthermore, it cannot be presumed that the creditor was aware of the objective fact of the fraudulent act, and the burden of proof as to the expiration of the limitation period has been proved to be the other party to the creditor's revocation lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da61280, Jul. 4, 2006; 201Da42819, Oct. 29, 29, etc.