The judgment below

The part of restitution (payment in installments) shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be the Busan District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Of the judgment of the court below, with respect to the part on the revocation of a fraudulent act in the judgment of the court below, the "date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause of revocation" refers to the date when the creditor becomes aware of the requirement of the creditor's right of revocation, i.e., the date when the debtor becomes aware of the fact that the creditor had committed a fraudulent act

In order for the creditor to be aware of the cause of revocation, it is not sufficient that the debtor simply knows that he/she conducted an act of disposal of property, and it is also necessary to know the existence of specific fraudulent act and to know the fact that he/she had the intent to harm the debtor.

If the objective facts of the fraudulent act were known, it cannot be presumed that the reason for revocation was known, and the burden of proof as to the lapse of the limitation period lies on the other party to the lawsuit for revocation of the fraudulent act.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da79320, Mar. 27, 2014). In a case where, after a fraudulent act, a creditor transfers a preserved claim with the knowledge of the reason for revocation and the transferee exercises the obligee’s right of revocation to preserve the claim, whether the period of exclusion should be determined on the basis of the date on which the transferor becomes aware of the reason for revocation.

The court below held that the lawsuit of this case was lawful since the plaintiff filed a lawsuit within one year from the date when the plaintiff became aware of the cause of revocation, on the premise that whether the lawsuit of revocation of the fraudulent act of this case brought by the plaintiff who acquired the claim of this case for the purpose of preserving the above claim should be determined based on the plaintiff, the assignee of the above claim.

Furthermore, the lower court, as a preliminary determination, determines whether the period of exclusion has elapsed on the basis of the transferor of the above claim.