1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for cancellation of the contract to establish a mortgage concerning the attached real estate indicated therein.

1. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) from June 2012 to August 25, 2014, the Plaintiff is a creditor for the purchase of goods amounting to KRW 459,537,80 according to the transaction with C; (b) on September 19, 2014, C concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendant on the instant real estate and made it possible for other general creditors to obtain preferential payment, and reduced the joint security of other general creditors; (c) accordingly, the said mortgage agreement constitutes a fraudulent act; (d) accordingly, it constitutes the said fraudulent act; and (e) the said agreement ought to be revoked as the said fraudulent act; and (e) KRW 56,786,47, which is the amount of dividends of the Defendant in the auction procedure for the purchase of D real estate with Seo-gu District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branched to KRW 56,786,477, respectively.

B. As to the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim for cancellation of the mortgage contract among the lawsuit in this case, the defendant asserts that the exercise of the plaintiff's right to cancel the fraudulent act is unlawful because it exceeds the exclusion period.

1) In the exercise of the right of revocation of the relevant legal doctrine, the “date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation” refers to the date when the obligee became aware of the requirements for the right of revocation, namely, the date when the obligee became aware of the fact that the obligor committed a fraudulent act while knowing that the obligee would prejudice the obligee. Thus, the mere fact that the obligor was aware of the act of disposal of the property is insufficient to deem that such a juristic act would impair the obligee. In short, it is necessary to inform the obligor that the juristic act would be an act of undermining the obligee, namely, that the obligor would not be able to fully satisfy the claim due to a lack of joint security of the claim or a lack of joint security already in the short, and that the obligor had an intent to cause an injury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da82834, Jan. 12, 2012).