1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. On February 2, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s assertion was completed the provisional attachment registration on the same day after receiving a decision of provisional attachment on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

However, the registration of establishment of a mortgage near the claim was completed at the time of the above provisional seizure registration, and the plaintiff was aware of the existence of the fraudulent act of this case around February 2, 2018.

Ultimately, the instant lawsuit was filed on July 12, 2019, which was one year after the lapse of one year thereafter, and thus, the exclusion agency is unlawful as it is in excess of the foregoing.

B. In the exercise of the right of revocation, the "date when the obligee becomes aware of the ground for revocation" means the date when the obligee became aware of the requirements for the right of revocation, i.e., the date when the obligee became aware of the fact that the obligor committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that the obligee would prejudice the obligee, so it is not sufficient that the obligor merely knows that he/she conducted a disposal of the property, and that the juristic act is an act detrimental to the obligee, i.e., the act that the obligor’s joint security of the claim is insufficient, or that there was a lack of common security in the claim, or that there was an intention to mislead the obligor.

(2) The grounds for revocation cannot be presumed to have been known to the creditor on the ground that the creditor knew of the objective facts of the fraudulent act, and the burden of proof as to the lapse of the exclusion period lies in the party to the lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act.

(Supreme Court Decision 2016Da272311 Decided April 10, 2018). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of a contract establishing a right to collateral security stated in the purport of the claim at the time the registration of provisional seizure was completed.

Even if there is a lack of common security for the plaintiff's claims or a lack of common security for the plaintiff's claims.