1. Upon the request of this court for a change in exchange, the Defendant shall provide the Plaintiff with each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: “E. A, on March 22, 2017, filed a petition for bankruptcy with the Incheon District Court Decision 2017Hadan1207, which was declared bankrupt on May 26, 2017; “A” was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy; and the Plaintiff added “(based on recognition”) A” as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except for addition of “A” as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit was unlawful on the ground that it was filed after the lapse of the exclusion period for exercising the obligee’s right of revocation.

However, after taking over the lawsuit in this court, the Plaintiff exchanged the claim for avoidance under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “DRB”) and changed the claim for revocation under the Civil Act to an exchange. Since the obligee’s right of revocation under the Civil Act and the right of denial under the Debtor Rehabilitation Act are separate systems and the limitation period are otherwise stipulated, whether the limitation period is complied with shall be determined under the Debtor Rehabilitation Act. Thus, in light of the above facts, it is evident that the instant lawsuit was filed before the limitation period under Article 405 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act (two years from the date of bankruptcy declaration, and ten years from the date of the act of denial) is over, and therefore, the Defendant’s defense against safety is groundless

3. The plaintiff asserts that the sales contract of this case should be denied as an act that the debtor knew that it would prejudice the bankruptcy creditor.

The act that the debtor sells real estate, which is the only property, and alters the money easily for consumption, constitutes an act detrimental to the bankruptcy creditors, and thus, the debtor's bad faith is presumed. Thus, the instant sales contract constitutes an act that can be denied under Article 391 subparagraph 1 of

Furthermore, the plaintiff who is the trustee in bankruptcy of the debtor A.