1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 22, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application with this court for a payment order (201 tea7971 damages) against C, a partner, for the same year.

4. 25. 25. The Court received a payment order from the Plaintiff that “C shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 21,200,000 and its delay damages.” The above payment order is the same year.

5.31.Around 31.

B. On August 28, 2013, C completed the share transfer registration on the ground of donation on August 14, 2013 with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) to the Defendant, who is the ASEAN on August 28, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) on August 14, 2013, donated each of the instant real estate, the sole property of the Defendant, to the Defendant; and (b) made it impossible to secure the Plaintiff’s damage claim against C; (c) thus, the above donation agreement between C and the Defendant should be revoked by fraudulent act; and (d) the Defendant shall be obliged to implement the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of the transfer

B. Since the Defendant filed a claim for revocation of the fraudulent act and restitution of the original state of this case more than five years after the conclusion date of the gift contract of this case, the Defendant’s defense that the exclusion period has expired is unlawful.

However, pursuant to Article 406(2) of the Civil Act, a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act shall be brought within one year from the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation and within five years from the date of the juristic act, which is the period for filing a lawsuit. Thus, if one of the two periods expires, the exercise of the obligee’s right of revocation is inappropriate in excess of the limitation period. Thus, since the revocation of the fraudulent act in this case and the claim for restitution was filed on July 12, 2019, which is the date when the gift contract in this case was concluded, five years from August 14, 2013, which is the date when the fraudulent act in this case was concluded, it is inappropriate to set the exclusion period stipulated in Article 406(2) of the Civil Act.