1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff has a tax claim in Sungdong Construction, and Sungdong Construction transferred the instant claim, which is the only property to the Defendant on December 23, 2014, under the status of excess of the obligation, such as the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay tax amounting to KRW 857,783,070 as of December 23, 2014, which is the only property of the Defendant, as of December 23, 2014, the agreement between Sungdong Construction and the Defendant, who is a beneficiary, should be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act, and the Defendant must notify the Plaintiff that the said agreement was revoked due to the revocation.

In regard to this, the defendant knew that the plaintiff's tax claim was about the income in 2007 and 2008 of Sungdong Construction, and that the plaintiff had the authority to grasp the property of Sungdong Construction, and that it was already in excess of his obligation since there was no property of Sungdong Construction after the occurrence of the above tax claim. At the time when Sungdong Construction knew that the claim of this case was transferred to the defendant, it was known that the claim transfer contract of this case was a fraudulent act. Thus, the lawsuit of this case was filed one year after the creditor, who was the exclusion period under Article 406 (2) of the Civil Act, became aware of the cause for cancellation, and thus, the lawsuit of this case was unlawful and the

B. According to Article 406(2) of the Civil Act, a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act shall be brought within one year from the date the obligee becomes aware of the cause of revocation and five years from the date the obligee becomes aware of the cause of revocation.

Here, “the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation” refers to the date when the obligee becomes aware of the requirements for obligee’s right of revocation, that is, the date when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that the obligee would prejudice the obligee, so it is insufficient to simply recognize the fact that the obligor committed an act of disposing of the property, and that such a juristic act is an act detrimental to the obligee, i.e.