1. Revocation of fraudulent act as to the real estate stated in attached Table 1 among lawsuits against Defendant C by the Plaintiff.

1. Of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant C, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim regarding the instant real estate No. 1

A. We examine whether the part of the Plaintiff’s claim regarding the instant real estate No. 1 among the lawsuits against Defendant C, which was lawful by ex officio investigation of the requirements for the lawsuit and ex officio of relevant legal principles.

According to Article 406 (2) of the Civil Code, a lawsuit for cancellation of a fraudulent act and restoration to the original state shall be brought within one year from the date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause of cancellation, and within five years from the date of the juristic

Since the period for exercising the above obligee's right of revocation is the period for filing a lawsuit, the court shall ex officio investigate whether the period is observed, and shall dismiss the obligee's right of revocation filed after the lapse of such period as illegal.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da73138, 73145 delivered on July 26, 2002, etc.) B.

Judgment

On the other hand, among the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C, the part concerning the claim for the real estate No. 1 of this case among the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C is unlawful since the plaintiff's claim for the real estate No. 1 of this case was filed after the lapse of five years from June 26, 2012, which was the date of conclusion of the sales contract for the real estate No. 1 of this case, which was alleged by the plaintiff as fraudulent act, only due to an application for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim, which was September 20, 2017.

2. The part of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant A and B, and the part of the claim regarding the real estate stated in attached Table 2 among the lawsuit against the Defendant C

A. As of February 20, 2017, the Plaintiff indicated the claim has a claim for acquisition amounting to KRW 1,384,767,390 (i.e., principal amount of KRW 384,236,905 and delay damages amount of KRW 1,036,530,485).

However, on January 5, 2013, Defendant B sold the real estate listed in the [Attachment 2] List, which is one’s own real estate (hereinafter “instant 2 real estate”) with the excess of the obligation, which is a creditor.