1. On April 1, 2013, the Defendant and B Co., Ltd., Ltd., which was concluded on April 1, 2013.

1. Determination on this safety defense

A. On January 6, 2014, the Defendant’s defense (hereinafter “Treatment Construction”) filed a lawsuit claiming a transfer payment against Daewoo Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and Construction submitted to the competent court a written contract for transfer of claim and a preparatory document attached with a notice of transfer of claim to the Defendant that transfers the claim for construction cost related to the treatment and construction of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) (hereinafter “instant claim”) to the Defendant, and the said preparatory document was delivered to the B B on January 7, 2014, the Plaintiff became aware that the instant transfer contract constitutes a fraudulent act.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case filed one year after the lapse of the exclusion period is unlawful as it exceeds the exclusion period.

B. In the exercise of the right of revocation, the "date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause for revocation" means the date when the creditor becomes aware of the requirements for the right of revocation, i.e., the date when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that he/she would prejudice the creditor. Thus, it is insufficient to say that the debtor merely knows that he/she conducted a disposal of the property, but it is insufficient to say that the legal act is an act detrimental to the creditor, which makes it difficult for the creditor to fully satisfy his/her claims due to the lack of joint security of claims or the lack of joint security already under the circumstances that such a legal act constitutes an act detrimental to the creditor, and further, it is difficult to presume that the debtor was aware of the objective fact of the fraudulent act, and the burden of proof as to the lapse of the limitation period is the other party to the creditor revocation lawsuit

(Supreme Court Decision 2013Da5855 Decided April 26, 2013). According to each description of the evidence Nos. 3 through 6 (including the serial number), a partner company in B, including the Plaintiff, is a partner company.