1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 28, 2009, the Plaintiff lent 30 million won to Nonparty D on November 28, 2009 due date for payment. During that process, C is an I Co., Ltd. operated by D and D and joint issuers, whose face value is 30 million won at sight, and a promissory note of this case (hereinafter referred to as “the Promissory note of this case”).

the issue was issued and delivered.

B. Meanwhile, the real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is the only property of C, is the real estate of this case.

the prior promise to trade on the same date under the name of the defendant on September 7, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the prior promise to trade of this case") is "the prior promise to trade".

the provisional registration of this case hereinafter referred to as the "provisional registration of this case").

A. On April 23, 2010, "the sales contract of this case" in the name of the defendant on February 24, 2010 is "the sales contract of this case".

(1) The registration of ownership transfer for the reason of the registration of ownership transfer shall be referred to as the "registration of ownership transfer".

(i) each ever completed [the facts that there was no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the fact inquiry results of the courts of the first instance on the southyang market, the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. The assertion on this safety defense

A. On February 25, 2010, after the completion of the provisional registration of this case, the plaintiff asserted that on February 25, 2010, the plaintiff applied for a compulsory auction of the real estate of this case to the Jung-gu District Court E, and on April 23, 2010, the registration of the decision on commencement of the auction case of this case (hereinafter "registration of entry to auction of this case") was notified to the plaintiff on April 23, 2010 that the registration of entry of the decision on commencement of auction case of this case will be cancelled ex officio. At least on April 23, 2010, the plaintiff was aware of the existence of the provisional registration of this case, so if so, the plaintiff would have known of the cause of revocation of the creditor, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case filed after the lapse of one year thereafter should

B. (1) In the exercise of the obligee’s right of revocation, “the date on which the obligee became aware of the cause for the revocation,” which is the starting point of the exclusion period.