1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. On August 201 through November 11, 201, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) obtained a loan from the Korea SPS Bank (hereinafter “SP”) and bears the obligation of the loan (hereinafter “instant loan obligation”) (hereinafter “instant loan obligation”), and B, the representative director of the Nonparty Company, jointly and severally guaranteed the said obligation.

As a de facto marital spouse B, the Defendant completed each registration of transfer of ownership on each real estate listed in the separate sheet, which was owned by B on March 5, 2012 and March 6, 2012, based on the division of property (hereinafter “instant division of property”) from February 28, 2012, as a spouse of the de facto marital marriage B, in the future of the Defendant.

On June 14, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired a claim against the non-party company and B from the non-party bank, and notified the non-party company on June 28, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, 6-9 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the agreement on the division of property of this case, which the Plaintiff transferred each real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is the only property substantially only in excess of the obligation, to the Defendant, constitutes a fraudulent act, is sought to revoke and reinstate the property. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the lawsuit for the revocation of the fraudulent act of this case is unlawful because it was filed with the exclusion period.

B. First of all, in determining whether the exclusion period of a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act is expired, the examination is conducted as to who is the transferor and transferee of a claim in the event that a preserved claim has been transferred, whether “when the transferor knows the cause of revocation of a fraudulent act” should be determined on the basis of anyone among the transferor and transferee. In other words, it is reasonable to determine the exclusion period even when the initial creditor knew of the cause of revocation of a fraudulent act for the following reasons.

Where bonds are transferred, the identity of the bonds is as it is.