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 reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the Defendant added “the judgment on the Defendant’s defense on the Defendant’s main defense” to the Defendant’s new defense at the trial; and (b) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, which reads “the portion of the first instance’s property status (Articles 3, 1 through 7)” as stated in “3.” (c) as stated in “the part of the first instance’s property status (Articles 3, 1 through 7)”; and (b) as stated in “the first instance’s basic facts” (which read “the grounds for recognition”) as stated in “B 4 through 7 (including the serial number)”; and (c) the phrase “2.”

The judgment as to whether a fraudulent act is constituted shall be accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except in cases where the judgment of the court of first instance is stated as follows, with the exception of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated in 3, 15, 4, 12) (as stated in 3, 15, and 4).

2. On May 10, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with respect to the right to claim the cancellation of provisional registration based on the instant purchase and sale reservation, which was based on the revocation of the fraudulent act on May 10, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff applied for provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff had already been aware of the grounds for revocation prior to that, and accordingly, the instant lawsuit was filed with

However, the burden of proof as to the lapse of the exclusion period lies in the other party to a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da272311, Apr. 10, 2018). Even if the Plaintiff knew of the ground for revocation around May 10, 2016 of the Plaintiff’s right to claim restitution based on the revocation of the fraudulent act as the preserved right, it is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on June 28, 2016, which was not less than one year from the date of the application for provisional disposition, and thus, the Plaintiff was aware of the ground for revocation one year prior to the date of the filing of the instant lawsuit.