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 of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part corresponding to each of the judgment of the court of first instance is used or added as follows. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Nos. 1 to 10 of conduct 10 of conduct 9 of conduct 1 of conduct 10 of conduct 10 shall be conducted as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

3. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.

① The instant contract for assignment of 3, 4, and 5 claims seeking revocation by fraudulent act was concluded pursuant to the first claim transfer contract dated October 29, 2013 and the second claim transfer contract dated August 16, 2017, and the limitation period has already lapsed at the time of the instant lawsuit.

(2) Even if not, the part seeking the cancellation of the third-party claim transfer contract among the lawsuit of this case, which the plaintiff sought for the cancellation of the third-party claim transfer contract, shall be dismissed in an unlawful manner, as it was filed after the lapse of the exclusion period after the revocation of

B. In the exercise of obligee’s right of revocation, “the date when the obligee became aware of the cause for the revocation,” which is the starting point of the exclusion period, refers to the date when the obligee became aware of the requirement for obligee’s right of revocation, i.e., the date when the obligor becomes aware of

In order for the creditor to be aware of the cause of revocation, it is not sufficient that the debtor simply knows that he/she conducted an act of disposal of property, and it is also necessary to know the existence of specific fraudulent act and to know the fact that he/she had the intent to harm the debtor.

If the objective facts of the fraudulent act were known, it cannot be presumed that the reason for revocation was known, and the burden of proof as to the intention of the exclusion period lies in the party to the lawsuit for revocation of the fraudulent act.

And there is a fraudulent act.