All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 3

(a) In the exercise of the obligee’s right of revocation, “the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause of revocation” means the date when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act while being aware that it would prejudice the obligee;

It is not enough that the debtor simply stated that he/she disposed of the property, and it is also necessary to know the existence of a specific fraudulent act and to know the fact that he/she had an intention to know about the debtor.

(2) The Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102 Decided March 26, 2009 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102, Mar. 26, 2009). However, when the State exercises its right of revocation against a legal act of a delinquent taxpayer with a preserved claim, whether the State was aware of the grounds for revocation in relation to the starting point of the exclusion period should be determined based on the tax official’s awareness in charge of the collection and preservation, etc. of the claims, barring any special circumstance. In addition, it can be said that the State knew not only the delinquent taxpayer’s disposal of property but also the existence of specific fraudulent act

B. Based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that each of the instant donations was a fraudulent act at each time the Plaintiff asserted by the Defendants, and that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have recognized the existence of a fraudulent act and the intention of deception solely on the ground that public officials in charge of other business became aware of only some of the elements of the fraudulent act in the course of performing their duties. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit was instituted one year after the date on which the Plaintiff became aware of the fraudulent act and the limitation period was filed.