All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the period for exclusion of obligee's right of revocation

A. When the State exercises its right of revocation against a legal act of a delinquent taxpayer by making a claim preserved for a claim against the State, the issue of whether the State was aware of the grounds for revocation in relation to the starting point of the limitation period should be determined based on the tax official’s awareness in charge of the duty to collect and preserve tax claims, barring any special circumstance. In light of the foregoing, it can be deemed that the State knew of the grounds for revocation at that time when the said tax official knew not only the delinquent taxpayer’s disposal of property but also the existence of a specific fraudulent act and that the delinquent

(Supreme Court Decision 2016Da200347 Decided June 15, 2017). B.

Based on evidence, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion that the gift contract of this case was a fraudulent act and its exclusion period has elapsed since the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed one year after the date on which it became fraudulent act and the Defendants’ assertion that the limitation period was exceeded since the Plaintiff’s claim was filed on March 19, 2015, on the following grounds: (a) public officials in charge of other duties conducted a tax investigation on E, etc., or the Plaintiff’s electronic data on D was established; and (b) the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s assertion was insufficient to have known that the gift contract of this case was a fraudulent act; and (c) the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed one year after the date on which it became aware of the fraudulent act.

C. Examining the foregoing legal principles and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the starting point of the exclusion period, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Revocation.