1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be respectively.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is that H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”)’s “H Co., Ltd.” (hereinafter “H”) by the fourth largest of the judgment of the first instance.

This part of the Civil Procedure Act is the same as that of the corresponding part except as the case.

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The Defendant’s assertion that: (a) there existed only G from time to time to recover the claim; (b) around March 4, 2011, which was investigated by the police in the instant provisional registration and the instant case where the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against E (hereinafter “E-related criminal case”); (c) or at least around December 8, 2011, which was present and testified as a witness in the E-related criminal case, should be deemed to have become aware of the fraudulent act.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit brought on September 25, 2013 after one year from that time was elapsed is unlawful as it intended the exclusion period expires.

B. 1) In the exercise of the obligee’s right of revocation, “the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation” means the date when the obligee becomes aware of the requirements for the obligee’s right of revocation, i.e., the date when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that the obligee would prejudice the obligee. Thus, it is insufficient to say that the obligor merely becomes aware of the fact that the obligor conducted a disposal act of the property, and that the juristic act is an act detrimental to the obligee, it is necessary to inform the obligor of the fact that the obligor was insufficient to fully satisfy the claim due to the deficiency in the joint security of the claim or the lack in the joint security that was already insufficient, and that the obligor was aware of the intent to harm the obligee. Furthermore, it cannot be presumed that the obligee was aware of the objective fact of the fraudulent act, and that the burden of proof as to the lapse of the exclusion period is the party to the obligee’s revocation lawsuit (Supreme Court Decision 2