1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff knew the grounds for cancellation on June 19, 2014, and that the period of exclusion has elapsed since the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on August 12, 2015, with the lapse of one year from that date.

In a lawsuit for revocation by a creditor, it is not sufficient to say that the creditor was aware of the cause of revocation by simply stating that there was a legal act of the debtor, and that such legal act is also an act detrimental to the creditor.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that, in case where the creditor has made a provisional seizure against the debtor's property after confirming the existence of any other property as a result of investigating the debtor's property status with the knowledge that the provisional registration has been made for the only property of the debtor, the creditor knew that the debtor had committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the creditor at the time of such provisional seizure. However, the creditor cannot be deemed to have known that the creditor was aware of the cause of revocation at the time of the request for provisional seizure on the register attached to

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da44348 Decided February 27, 2001). The fact that the registration of creation of a mortgage was made on the copy of the real estate register, which is the attached documents submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of filing an application for F compulsory auction with the District Court on June 18, 2014, is apparent in the record.

Therefore, it is confirmed that the plaintiff knew the existence of the defendant's right to collateral security at that time.

However, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was aware of the reason for revocation of the obligee's right of revocation.

On the other hand, in the above auction procedure, the appraisal report was received from the Jung-gu District Court on July 8, 2014.

(B) However, there is no evidence that the Plaintiff had known of the content of the appraisal report before August 12, 2014.

Therefore, the defendant's main defense is without merit.

The plaintiff's ground for appeal Nos. 1 to 1.