The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasons cited by the Korean court concerning the instant case are as follows: (a) by deducting any addition of the following sub-paragraph (2), it is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance; and (b) thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the first instance court accepted the defense prior to the exclusion period that was submitted later than two years and nine months after the filing of the lawsuit by Defendant Asian Trust and rejected the lawsuit of this case in violation of the principle of good faith in the lawsuit or the principle of timely submission under the Civil Procedure Act. However, even if the Defendant did not make the defense prior to the exclusion period, whether the exclusion period exceeds the exclusion period should be determined ex officio by the court as the response, since the above assertion is without merit).

2. On May 27, 2010, at the time of the submission of the application for civil conciliation, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant trust agreement was so-called disposal trust or management trust, and thus, it was not possible to determine whether the instant trust agreement was a fraudulent act. Since Defendant Asian Trust came to know on June 23, 201 that the instant land and the instant apartment, sold to Defendant B, constituted a fraudulent act as a disposal trust, the instant lawsuit filed on February 4, 201, for which one year has not passed thereafter, was lawful.

Article 406 (2) of the Civil Code provides that "the date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause of revocation" means the time when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor engaged in a juristic act while knowing that the creditor would harm the creditor, and it is insufficient to know the objective fact of the fraudulent act, and it cannot be presumed that the creditor was aware of the objective fact of the fraudulent act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu26475, Sept. 12, 1989). However, if an obligor created a trust with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee, even if the obligee is bona fide, the obligee is a trustee, etc., under the Civil Act.