1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. As to the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff: (a) as of October 2010, the Plaintiff had a claim for the payment of goods amounting to KRW 197,061,935 (hereinafter “the instant claim for the payment of goods”) against E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”); (b) promised to pay the price of the said goods until March 31, 201; and (c) made a joint and several guarantee for E’s payment obligation with the Defendant on January 6, 2012 with respect to the instant real property under excess of the obligation; (d) concluded a separate mortgage agreement with the Defendant on January 11, 2012 with respect to the instant real property (hereinafter “instant legal act”); and (e) completed the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage on January 11, 2012 with the Defendant as a mortgagee; and (e) sought a distribution schedule for revocation and correction of the purport of the instant legal act as a restitution.

In this regard, the defendant's defense against this issue is that the lawsuit for revocation of the fraudulent act of this case is brought against the exclusion period and must be dismissed.

In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to consider that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that: (a) on April 9, 2012, upon receipt of the provisional attachment decision regarding the instant real estate, or around October 17, 2013, upon receipt of the decision to commence compulsory sale of real estate of this case, A was insolvent at the time of the instant legal act and had the intent to cause harm to A; and (b) it is apparent that the instant lawsuit was filed only on February 23, 2015, more than one year thereafter, on the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on February 23, 2015.

① As the actual owner of E and F Company F, A has jointly and severally guaranteed the obligations of the said Company.

The plaintiff is owned by E.