1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Plaintiff’s assertion

On August 24, 2011, No. 1, a debtor corporation, entered into a trust agreement with the defendant (hereinafter “instant trust agreement”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is the only property (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”).

Therefore, the instant trust contract should be revoked as a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors including the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of transfer in the name of the Defendant, which was completed with respect to each of the instant real estate by restitution following cancellation.

As to the judgment on the defense before the merits of this case, the defendant raised after the lapse of the exclusion period, and thus, raises a defense as unlawful.

Where a debtor has established a trust with the knowledge that he/she would prejudice the creditor, the creditor may, even if he/she is bona fide, file a claim for revocation and reinstatement under Article 406 (1) of the Civil Act (Article 8 (1) of the former Trust Act (Amended by Act No. 10924, Jul. 25, 201); Article 406 (1) of the Civil Act; and the lawsuit for revocation and restitution under Article 406 (1) of the Civil Act shall be filed within one year from the date

(Article 406(2) of the Civil Act. In the exercise of the 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 right of revocation, that is, 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 knows that he/she conducted a disposal of the property, and that the juristic act is prejudicial to the obligee, i.e., that it is insufficient for the obligor to take a disposal of the property, and that the juristic act is an act detrimental to the obligee, thereby making it impossible to fully satisfy the obligor's claims