beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.
3.The ancillary.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. Judgment as to the main claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had a claim against C, and C concluded the instant contract to establish a mortgage on each of the instant real estate owned by the Defendant, and concluded the instant contract on the instant seven real estate as to the instant seven real estate, respectively, shall be revoked as a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff.
B. On June 5, 2013, the Defendant asserted that the exclusion period of the instant lawsuit filed one year after the Plaintiff’s filing an application with the Seoul Eastern District Court for specification of property and that the instant mortgage contract was a fraudulent act. As such, the instant lawsuit filed after the lapse of one year thereafter was subject to the exclusion period.
According to the evidence No. 3, the fact that the plaintiff filed an application for property specification with the Seoul Eastern District Court on June 5, 2013 is recognized.
However, in the exercise of the creditor's 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 creditor's right of revocation, that is, the date when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that he would prejudice the creditor. Thus, it is insufficient to say that the debtor merely knows that he/she conducted a disposal act of the property, and that the juristic act is an act detrimental to the creditor, which makes it difficult for the creditor to fully satisfy his/her claim due to the deficiency in joint security of the claim or the lack of joint security in the situation where the legal act is an act detrimental to the creditor, and further, it is necessary to inform the debtor of the fact that he/she had an intention to harm the debtor, and that the debtor was aware of the objective fact of the fraudulent act, the burden