1. As to the real estate stated in the separate sheet between the Defendant and C, the reservation to trade concluded on September 7, 2009 and February 24, 2010.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 28, 2009, the Plaintiff leased KRW 30 million to Nonparty D as of November 28, 2009, and C provided joint and several sureties with a due date.

D and C prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a notarial deed of promissory notes of KRW 30 million on January 8, 2010 for the said 30 million repayment security.

B. On September 7, 2009, the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) was completed on September 7, 2009 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is the only property C (hereinafter “instant real estate”), based on the trade reservation on the same date (hereinafter “instant trade reservation”) under the Defendant’s name, and on April 23, 2010, the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant transfer registration”) was completed on February 24, 2010 under the Defendant’s name (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, fact-finding results of this court's fact-finding, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. On February 25, 2010, after the completion of the provisional registration of this case, the plaintiff asserted that on February 25, 2010, the plaintiff applied for a compulsory auction of the real estate of this case to the Jung-gu District Court E, and on April 23, 2010, the registration of the decision on commencement of the auction case of this case (hereinafter "registration of entry to auction of this case") was notified to the plaintiff on April 23, 2010 that the registration of entry of the decision on commencement of auction case of this case will be cancelled ex officio. At least on April 23, 2010, the plaintiff was aware of the existence of the provisional registration of this case, so if so, the plaintiff would have known of the cause of revocation of the creditor, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case filed after the lapse of one year thereafter should

B. The "date when the obligee became aware of the cause for the revocation", which is the starting point of the exclusion period in the exercise of the obligee's right of revocation, is the date when the obligee became aware of the requirement.