1. Defendant A, B, and C are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 150,452,572 and KRW 149,113,726 among them.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A, B, and C

(a) Except that the Plaintiff’s indication of the claim has reduced the rate of delay damages from the day following the delivery of the complaint to 15% per annum, as shown in the reasons for the claim.

(b) Judgment on deemed confessions by applicable provisions of Acts (Articles 208 (3) 2 and 150 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant Hasna Co., Ltd.

A. As to the judgment on this safety defense, Defendant Hasna Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Hasna”), the Plaintiff, as a credit guarantee agency, could regularly supervise the property status of Defendant 2, and, as to Defendant 2, the Plaintiff, as a credit guarantee agency, discovered it immediately after the establishment of the right to collateral security under Defendant Hasna’s name, the right to collateral security under Defendant Hasna’s name was established. Thus, the instant lawsuit asserted that the limitation period of one year has elapsed from the date on which the cause for revocation was known, and thus, it is unlawful.

In the exercise of the right of revocation, the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for the revocation, which is the starting point of the exclusion period, means the date when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor committed a fraudulent act while knowing that the obligee would prejudice the obligee. In order to say that the obligee was aware of the cause for the revocation, the mere fact that the obligor was aware of the act of disposal of the property is insufficient, and it is necessary to know the existence of a specific fraudulent act and to know the fact that the obligor was aware of the intent of deception, and it cannot be presumed that the obligee was aware of the objective fact of the fraudulent act, and the burden of proof as to the lapse of the exclusion period exists in the obligee’s revocation lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23857, Sept. 24, 2002). The mere fact that the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was a party to the obligee’s revocation lawsuit, the establishment of the right of creation of a fraudulent act established in the name of the Defendant river constitutes the creation of the property.