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 reasons for the court’s explanation of this case are as follows: (a) additional evidence submitted at the trial of the court of first instance that is insufficient to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion regarding “the Defendant is bona fide in respect of B’s fraudulent act”; (b) No. 23 and No. 24; and (c) No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance (“No. 203, Mar. 20, 2012, where the rehabilitation procedure was discontinued”; and (d) “after the rehabilitation procedure was abolished” in Chapter 4 as “after the completion of the registration,” respectively; and (c) the Defendant’s additional assertion in the trial of the court of first instance as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except by adding the following judgment to the corresponding part, this shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. 1) The defendant asserts that the lawsuit in this case was unlawful because it had been filed by the plaintiff about one year from the date on which the plaintiff became aware of the ground for revocation. 2) In the exercise of the obligee's right of revocation, the "date on which the obligee becomes aware of the ground for revocation" means the date on which the obligee becomes aware of the requirements for obligee's right of revocation, i.e., the date on which the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act while knowing that the obligee would harm the obligee. Thus, it is insufficient to say that the obligor merely knew of the fact that he/she conducted a disposal act of the property, and it is insufficient to fully satisfy the claim due to the fact that the juristic act was in short of the common security of the claim or the common security that was already in short of the obligor's intent to harm the obligee. Furthermore, it cannot be presumed that the obligee was aware of the objective facts of the fraudulent act, and the burden of proof as to the exclusion period and the burden of proof.