beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the defendant decides to add a new description to the court of first instance as stated in the following 2.2. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence
2. Additional determination
A. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant's plaintiff filed a fraudulent complaint against S and M on the ground that "S and M did not enter into a contract for the supply of original entrusted breeding without any intention or ability to pay the breeding fee within the agreed date, and did not pay part of the fee." The defendant's assertion in the process of investigation into the above complaint case, K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "K").
(2) On October 27, 2015, the fact that the Defendant remitted KRW 800 million to the Defendant was confirmed. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs were aware of the cause of revocation of the fraudulent act before filing a complaint for S and M at the latest, and the instant lawsuit brought on September 28, 2017, which was one year after this, is unlawful. (2) The date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause of revocation, which is the starting point of the limitation period, in exercising the obligee’s right of revocation, refers to the date when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor was aware of the cause of revocation, i.e., the date when the obligee became aware of the fact that the obligor was aware of the fact that the obligee was acting as an act of disposal of the property, and the fact that the obligee was aware of the existence of a specific fraudulent act, and further, that the obligor was aware of the intent of deception.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23857 delivered on September 24, 2002, etc.). According to Gap evidence No. 1, even if the plaintiffs requested original breeding, they enter into a original consignment supply contract without the intent or ability to pay the breeding fee within the agreed time limit, and pay part of the commission.