1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited pursuant to Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. According to the Defendant’s principal defense and Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 407(2) of the Civil Act, where a legal act aimed at evading the collection of national taxes is revoked by fraudulent act, the obligee shall file a lawsuit for revocation of fraudulent act within one year from the date on which he becomes aware of the grounds for revocation. The Plaintiff, at least around October 11, 2013, knew that the sales and purchase contract for the instant real estate was constituted a fraudulent act, but at least around October 16, 2013, the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case with respect to the instant real estate with the limitation period of one year from the time when he/she exceeded the limitation period. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as the limitation period.

B. Determination 1) In the exercise of the right of revocation, 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 the 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. Thus, the mere fact that the obligor was aware of the act of disposal of the property is insufficient to say that the juristic act is an act detrimental to the obligee. In other words, it is necessary to inform the obligee of the fact that the obligor was unable to fully satisfy the claim due to the lack of joint security of the claim or the lack of joint security already occurred, and that the obligor was aware of the intent to harm the obligor. However, the obligee does not require that the obligee be aware of the bad faith of the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da82384, Jan. 12, 2012).