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. The reasoning of the judgment of this court cited the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, stating “the judgment on this case’s defense” between the third and fourth of the judgment of the court of first instance, and “the result of this court’s response to the order to submit financial transaction information to Gwangju Bank” in the 8-3-4th of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that “the result of this court’s response to the order to submit financial transaction information to Gwangju Bank Co., Ltd.” is the same as the statement of the judgment of the court of first instance, so it is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the defense before the merits

A. In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant asserted that the instant sales contract constituted a fraudulent act on June 2, 2014, on the grounds that the instant sales contract was concluded on April 1, 2014 or that the Gwangju Bank’s claim was fully satisfied, and that the instant sales contract constituted a fraudulent act on June 2, 2014, and that the instant lawsuit filed on October 27, 2015, which was later than one year thereafter, exceeded the exclusion period of the lawsuit seeking revocation.

(1) On March 5, 2014, the Plaintiff, as a specialized credit guarantee institution, was aware of the existence of real estate listed in the separate sheet and the fact that the instant sales contract was concluded by investigating B’s property at the time of a credit guarantee accident.

(2) After having fully repaid the obligation of loans to Gwangju Bank as part of the sale price of real estate listed in the separate sheet, the creditor list was revised by excluding Gwangju Bank from the creditor list with the permission of the court in the case of individual rehabilitation (2013da42717). On June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff was served with the revised creditor list and the notice of change in the repayment plan. Thus, the Plaintiff sold real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Defendant on June 2, 2014 at the latest.