1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. On January 8, 2010, the Defendant’s assertion D sent to the Defendant and C a certificate to the effect that the contract for the transfer and takeover of claims is null and void on November 2, 2009, and the testimony was made in the case No. 2009Gadan38644 on March 4, 2010 between C and E, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation was deemed to have known of the cause for cancellation at the latest, and the lawsuit of this case filed one year after the lapse of the exclusion period is unlawful as it exceeds the exclusion period.

B. 1) Where a creditor acts in subrogation of a debtor's right of revocation, the period for filing a lawsuit shall be determined on the basis of the debtor who is the creditor of the right which is the object of subrogation (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da73049, Dec. 27, 2001). "the date when the creditor becomes aware of the ground for exclusion" in the exercise of right of revocation refers to 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 while knowing that the debtor would prejudice the creditor. Thus, it is insufficient to say that the legal act was prejudicial to the creditor, i.e., the act of damaging the creditor's disposal of the property, namely, the act that the creditor was insufficient to secure the joint security of the claim or that the joint security which had already been insufficient is more sufficient, and that the debtor was willing to exercise the right of revocation in subrogation of the debtor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da231329, Jul. 24, 139, etc.).