The judgment below

This part of the preliminary claim is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Cheongju District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Since the period for exercising the right of revocation as stipulated in Article 406(2) of the Civil Act is the period for filing a lawsuit, the court shall investigate ex officio as to whether the said period is observed, and the lawsuit for revocation filed after the said period expires shall be dismissed as illegal;

Therefore, if there is doubt as to whether the period has been observed, the court can ex officio examine the evidence according to the necessary extent.

Meanwhile, in the exercise of the obligee’s right of revocation, the “date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause of revocation” refers to the date when the obligor becomes aware of the fact that the obligee had committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee. This is insufficient to simply recognize the fact that the obligor conducted a disposal act of the property, and further, to know the existence of a specific fraudulent act and to know the fact that the obligor had an intent to deceive the obligor

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da76426 Decided February 23, 2012, etc.). However, barring any special circumstance, a debtor’s disposal of real estate, the sole property of which is the intention of deception, becomes a fraudulent act against a creditor, barring any special circumstance. Here, the debtor’s intent of deception refers to recognizing the shortage of common security of claims, and does not require any intent or intent to impair the creditor.

Therefore, if the debtor disposes of the real estate, which is the only property of the debtor, the intention of the debtor's death is presumed. If the debtor disposes of the real estate, which is the only property, and the creditor knew of the fact that there is no property other than the real estate, the creditor was aware of the fact that the debtor committed a fraudulent act, i.e., the reason for revocation

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da109692, Apr. 26, 2012). 2. A

The judgment below

According to the reasons and records, the reasons and records of 1. D are as follows.