1. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff holds a claim based on the payment order (this Court No. 2012j6830) finalized against C.

B. However, on June 13, 2012, C sold each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, one of its sole property (hereinafter “real estate No. 1”) to the Defendant on the basis of the excess of debt, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant was completed on June 18, 2012.

C. The sales contract for the first real estate between the Defendant and C (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditors of C including the Plaintiff, and should be revoked.

Furthermore, since the Defendant’s transfer of the first real estate to a third party and thus it is impossible to return the original property, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 74,100,000, equivalent to the value of the first real estate as compensation.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. Exclusion Period Do and Claim 1) The Defendant filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the said fraudulent act one year after the date on which the Plaintiff became aware that the instant sales contract constituted a fraudulent act detrimental to C’s obligee. Thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is unlawful after the lapse of exclusion period. 2) According to Article 406(2) of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of revocation of the fraudulent act should be instituted within one year from the date on which the obligee became aware of the cause of revocation and five years from the date on which the said lawsuit

Here, “the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation” refers to the date when the obligee becomes aware of the requirements for obligee’s right of revocation, that is, the date when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that the obligee would prejudice the obligee, so it is insufficient to simply recognize the fact that the obligor committed an act of disposing of the property, and that such a juristic act is an act detrimental to the obligee, i.e.