1. The plaintiff's primary claim shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. On May 2, 2011, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against Nonparty B seeking payment of goods under the court No. 201 tea643 and applied for a payment order against Nonparty B, and confirmed on May 21, 2011 upon receipt of a payment order and confirmed on May 21, 2011, that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 210,834,775, and any delay damages therefor.” However, B had each of the legal acts described in the primary purport of the claim (hereinafter “the instant legal act”) in excess of the obligation, and B had already performed the instant legal act constitutes a fraudulent act. As such, B’s revocation of the instant legal act and restitution, sought cancellation of each registration stated in the purport of the claim.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the lawsuit of revocation of the fraudulent act in this case should be dismissed because it has been instituted with the limitation period. Thus, the lawsuit of revocation of the fraudulent act shall be brought within five years from the date when the creditor is a juristic act. The legal act under Article 406 (2) of the Civil Act refers to the date when the principal registration has been made as to whether the promise for sale is made or the principal registration has been made (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da26329, Nov. 8, 1996). The lawsuit in this case is unlawful as it was brought on June 3, 2015, which was after the lapse of five years from November 4, 2009, the date when the contract for sale was made.

2. The plaintiff's judgment as to the conjunctive claim exceeds the amount that the defendant lent to B, which is more than the amount that the defendant paid to B, and even though there is no amount that the defendant would have been repaid from B, the plaintiff in collusion with B unfairly obstructed the plaintiff's execution of claims against B by obtaining the ownership of the primary claim based on the false claim. The plaintiff due to the above tort, which is 116,20,000 won, deducting the maximum amount of claims against collateral security from 176,00,000 won, which is the value of the real estate of this case, 59,800 won, which is the maximum amount of claims against collateral security.