1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff asserted that the trust contract concluded on April 19, 2010 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) between the Defendant and Nonparty C (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was a fraudulent act, and sought against the Defendant revocation of the instant trust contract and cancellation of the ownership transfer registration as to the instant real estate.

In the exercise of the obligee's right of revocation, "the date when the obligee becomes aware of the grounds for revocation" means the date when the obligee becomes aware of the requirements for the obligee's 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 it would prejudice the obligee. In order to say that the obligee was aware of the grounds for revocation, it is insufficient to say that the obligor merely knew of the fact that the obligee conducted a disposal of the property, and it is also necessary to know that the obligee had known of the existence of a specific fraudulent act and, furthermore, the obligee did not need to know of the fact that the obligee had the intent to know of the existence

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da17535 Decided June 9, 2005, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 1 as well as evidence Nos. 1, the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for provisional disposition prohibiting disposal of the instant real estate on April 18, 2013, on the ground that the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for provisional disposition prohibiting disposal on the instant real estate by taking the right to claim restitution following the revocation of fraudulent act under the instant trust contract as the right to be preserved. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was aware of the grounds for revocation of the instant trust contract at around that time.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit was filed after the lapse of one year from April 18, 2013, which was seen to have been known to the Plaintiff as the cause for revocation, and the period of exclusion under Article 406(2) of the Civil Act was exceeded.