beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. Whether the exclusion period is complied with, the Defendant: (a) filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act within one year from the date the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation; and (b) five years from the date of the legal act; (c) the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of a legal act, which is the cause for revocation, by investigating the financial status of B, etc. on April 29, 2014
As such, the lawsuit of this case filed one year after the lapse of the exclusion period is unlawful because it did not comply with the exclusion period.
However, "the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation" means the date when the obligee became aware of the existence of the obligee's right of revocation, i.e., the date when the obligor becomes aware of the existence of the obligee's right of revocation with the knowledge that the obligee would prejudice the obligee, and the mere fact that the obligor was aware of the obligee's act of disposal of the property is insufficient. In other words, it is not sufficient that the legal act constitutes "damage to the obligee." That is, it is necessary to inform the obligor of the fact that the obligor was unable to fully satisfy the claim due to the shortage of joint security of the claim or lack of joint security already in the situation, and that the obligor was aware of the intention of deception (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da40286, Dec. 12, 2003). Thus, it cannot be presumed that the obligee was aware of the cause for revocation with the knowledge of the objective facts of the fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da62804, Jul. 4, 2006).