1. The part of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant C regarding the revocation of the fraudulent act is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B.

1. Claim against the defendant B

(a) An action for the extension of the prescription of a claim for return of money based on a final and conclusive judgment on May 21, 2009, Sung-nam District Court 2008Gadan28617, 2009

(b) Judgment by service based on which recognition is applicable (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Action against Defendant C

A. We examine ex officio the determination as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit on the part of the claim for revocation of fraudulent act. The so-called lawsuit for extension of prescription is the right that can serve as the subject matter of extinctive prescription. Although there is a judgment of revocation of fraudulent act which became final and conclusive in Suwon District Court 2008Gaga28617, Suwon District Court Branch Branch Decision 2008Gaga28617, the plaintiff does not have a benefit to seek revocation of fraudulent act between the defendants as to the sales contract as of October 203 between the defendants by this accident.

B. Part 1 of the claim for restitution 208Gaga28617 decided May 21, 2009, which became final and conclusive on May 21, 2009 (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act) by a confession based on the ground of recognition (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. In conclusion, the part of the plaintiff's claim for the revocation of the fraudulent act among the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C is unlawful, and thus, it is dismissed. Since the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B and the remaining claim against the defendant C are reasonable, it is so decided as per Disposition.