All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where there are many persons in a duty to support under Articles 974 and 975 of the Civil Act, the right to seek the payment of the past support allowance already paid by one of them to another person in a duty to support has been established as a specific and independent property right only by a consultation between the parties or by a final judgment of the family court. However, in a case where the right to revoke is exercised on the ground of infringement of the right to claim the support allowance, the exclusion period should run from the "date when the person becomes aware of the cause of revocation" or "date when the legal act has occurred" as stipulated in Article 406(2) of the Civil Act instead of the time when

2.(a)

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiffs’ primary claim is unlawful since the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit on August 6, 2012, which was the one-year exclusion period from disposal of each of the instant real estate, on June 10, 2009, on which the first instance court judgment (hereinafter “instant judgment”) in the instant case against D, should be the starting point for the exclusion period of May 24, 2012, based on the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the instant gift contract constituted a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiffs, and that the Plaintiffs’ primary claim against D, which was subsequent to the lapse of the one-year exclusion period, was unlawful. However, the Plaintiffs’ primary claim against D, which became the preserved right in the instant case, can only be exercised as specific rights only when the court’s judgment on the support fee claim against D, which became final and conclusive, should be the starting point for the exclusion period of the Plaintiff’s claim against D.