beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 31, 2013, D entered into a loan agreement (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with C to grant a loan with a certain amount of interest of KRW 400 million per annum and a loan with a certain amount of loan on October 31, 2013 to C (hereinafter “instant loan”). On the same day, C guaranteed the obligations of the agricultural partnership under the said agreement to C, while C guaranteed the obligations of the agricultural partnership under the said agreement.
B. Meanwhile, on August 2, 2013, C donated the real estate (hereinafter “instant apartment”) recorded in the list (attached Form 1) to the Defendant, who is the wife (hereinafter “instant apartment”) (hereinafter “instant donation contract”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s future on the same day.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1, witness D's testimony, purport of whole pleadings
2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, around March 17, 2014, D knew that D had donated the apartment of this case to the Defendant, and that C would apply for the provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of the apartment of this case, the Plaintiff was aware of the cause for revocation of the creditor’s revocation of this case at that time, and that the lawsuit of this case filed after the lapse of one year thereafter is unlawful, even with the exclusion period.
However, in the exercise of the obligee's right of revocation, "the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for the revocation" means the date when the obligee becomes aware of the requirement for the obligee's right of revocation, that is, the date when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that the obligee would prejudice the obligee. Thus, it is insufficient to simply say that the obligor had conducted a disposal of the property, and that the juristic act is prejudicial to the obligee, that is, the obligee's act.