The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The First and Second Grounds of Appeal

(a) In the exercise of the obligee’s right of revocation, “the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause of revocation” means the date when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act while being aware that it would prejudice the obligee;

It is not enough that the debtor simply stated that he/she disposed of the property, and it is also necessary to know the existence of a specific fraudulent act and to know the fact that he/she had an intention to know about the debtor.

(2) The Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102 Decided March 26, 2009 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102, Mar. 26, 2009). However, in cases where the State exercises its right of revocation against a legal act of a delinquent taxpayer with a claim preserved as a preserved claim, whether the State was aware of the grounds for revocation in relation to the starting point of the exclusion period, barring any special circumstance, it shall be determined on the basis of the tax official’s awareness in charge

Therefore, it can be said that the state knew not only the disposal of the property of the delinquent taxpayer but also the existence of a specific fraudulent act and the intention of deceiving the delinquent taxpayer, thereby having known the reason for cancellation at that time.

B. The lower court knew that a tax official in charge of the collection, preservation, etc. of a tax claim did not know the instant transfer until March 15, 2013, in which the instant civil petition was received, and that he knowingly committed a fraudulent act by B (hereinafter “B”) a corporate debtor at the time when a considerable period for determining the validity of the said civil petition was elapsed. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed on March 14, 2014, which was one year after the date, and did not set the exclusion period.