1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 27, 1996, E, the husband of the Plaintiff, provided C with a loan of KRW 64 million to C, and on July 27, 2003, the wife of C lent KRW 64 million as a joint and several surety.

B. As E died on April 10, 2008, the Plaintiff succeeded to the net E’s claim against the deceased E.

C. On July 27, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of KRW 50,000,000 for the above loan as the head of the Gwangju District Court Branch Decision 201Gadan543, and filed a lawsuit against C and D seeking payment of KRW 64,00,000 for the above loan as the head of the Gwangju District Court Branch Decision 201Gadan536, respectively, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

On January 27, 2011, the Defendant has awarded a successful bid for real estate in the F real estate auction procedure for the interest promotion support for the Gwangju District Court on the same day and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On May 4, 2011, the Defendant: (a) discovered the grounds for revocation of fraudulent act around around the time when the Plaintiff filed two lawsuit claiming loans against C, etc. (No. 2011Dangju District Court Decision 2011No. 543, 201Gadan536).

The lawsuit in this case asserts that the exclusion period of one year from the lawsuit in this case is unlawful, since it has been set up.

In a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act, the term "date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause for revocation" means the date when the debtor becomes aware of the fact that he/she committed a fraudulent act while being aware that he/she would prejudice the creditor, which is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the debtor performed a disposal act of the property. It is also required to know that the debtor was aware of the existence of a specific fraudulent act and, furthermore, that the debtor

On the other hand, the burden of proof on the lapse of the exclusion period is against the other party to the lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act.

Supreme Court Decision 209.3. 26.