1. As regards Defendant B’s KRW 71,00,000 and KRW 70,000 among the Plaintiff, Defendant B shall be from December 1, 2006 to November 28, 2017.

Defendant C’s defense prior to the merits of this case had been filed against Defendant C after the lapse of one year from the date on which the Plaintiff became aware of the grounds for revocation, which is the exclusion period of the revocation lawsuit against the fraudulent act, which is the exclusion period of the revocation lawsuit. As such, the instant lawsuit was unlawful, and thus, deemed as a defense prior to the merits

A lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act shall be brought within one year from the date on which the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation and within five years from the date of the juristic act (see Article 406(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). In the exercise of the obligee's right of revocation, "the date on which the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation" means the date on which the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act while knowing that it would prejudice the obligee.

At this time, in order for the obligee to be aware of the cause for revocation, it is insufficient to simply recognize the fact that the obligor performed an act of disposal of the property, and further, it is necessary to know the existence of a specific fraudulent act and to know the fact that the obligor had an intent to injure the obligor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da272311, Apr. 10, 2018). In addition, there is no evidence suggesting that the obligee knew the existence of specific fraudulent act more than 1 year prior to the time when the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, and that the Defendant B had an intention to injure the obligor B. Thus, the prior defense on the merits of the Defendant C is without merit.

Defendant B’s judgment on the cause of claim against Defendant B does not clearly dispute the Plaintiff’s assertion by failing to appear on the date of pleading even after being served with lawful service by public notice, and failing to submit written answers and other preparatory documents. Thus, pursuant to the main text of Article 150(3) and Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Defendant B loaned Defendant B the sum of KRW 70,000,000 (= KRW 40,000,000,000) for the total of KRW 30,000 on August 11, 2003, and KRW 30,000 ( KRW 40,000,000). The Plaintiff loaned the remainder of E Union on May 31, 2017; and