1. The plaintiff's primary claim shall be dismissed.

2. As to the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 23, 1979, the Plaintiff and C filed a marriage report with the Seoul Family Court. On March 27, 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff and C were sentenced to the judgment that “A shall divorce between the Plaintiff and C. C shall pay the Plaintiff a solatium amounting to KRW 30 million, delay damages therefor, and property division amounting to KRW 183 million” (201dhap4971, 13173).

B. On May 15, 2013, C concluded a mortgage agreement with a maximum debt amount of KRW 370 million with respect to the real estate indicated in the attached list owned by C (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the Defendant’s attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on May 24, 2013 (hereinafter “instant registration”).

C. In the above judgment, the Plaintiff and C appealed on both the claim for consolation money and the part on the claim for division of property of the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim, and the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment on December 18, 2013 that “C shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 164 million to the division of property” (the principal lawsuit, 1488 (Counterclaim) and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

On the other hand, C was in excess of the obligation at the time of establishing the mortgage of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the Plaintiff’s judgment as to the primary claim, the instant mortgage contract between the Defendant and C constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, should be revoked. As to the assertion that the Plaintiff had the duty to cancel the registration of this case as the restoration to its original state, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the fraudulent act is unlawful, even with the exclusion period

In the exercise of creditor's right of revocation, "the date when the creditor, which is the starting point of the exclusion period, becomes aware of the cause of cancellation".