1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except for the modification or addition as set forth below. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

B. 1) Of the “1. Recognition” in the judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant’s “Defendant” (No. 2, No. 11) is corrected as “E”. 2) With respect to the Defendant’s principal safety defense, the following judgments are added to the second sentence of the judgment of the first instance.

The defendants asserts that the lawsuit in this case was unlawful, since the plaintiff, the creditor, was filed one year after he became aware of the grounds for revocation of the fraudulent act.

In the exercise of the obligee's right of revocation, "the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for the revocation" means the date when the obligee becomes aware of the requirement for the obligee's right of revocation, that is, the date when the obligor becomes aware of the fact that the obligee had committed a fraudulent act

In order for the creditor to be aware of the cause of revocation, it is not sufficient that the debtor simply knows that he/she conducted an act of disposal of property, and it is also necessary to know the existence of specific fraudulent act and to know the fact that he/she had the intent to harm the debtor.

If the objective facts of the fraudulent act were known, it cannot be presumed that the reason for revocation was known, and the burden of proof as to the lapse of the limitation period lies on the other party to the lawsuit for revocation of the fraudulent act.

(Supreme Court Decision 2016Da272311 Decided April 10, 2018). The statement of evidence Nos. 7 and 8 is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit one year after being aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had made the instant promise to sell and purchase the instant goods and the instant provisional registration, and furthermore, became aware of the fact that the obligor E had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had

3. At the end of the sixth part of the judgment of the first instance, the following: