1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which the court should explain, is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added "the judgment of the court of first instance as to the main defense of this case" to the new argument that the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was that the Plaintiff applied for the commencement of auction on the instant real estate before around 2015, and was notified by the person in charge of the auction to the effect that the auction will not proceed with because there is no money remaining at the time of auction. Therefore, it should be deemed that the instant mortgage contract was aware of the fact constituting a fraudulent act.

Even if not, the Plaintiff received a decision to commence compulsory auction on January 3, 2017, and completed the registration thereof. Thus, at least around that time, the Defendant knew of the completion of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over KRW 60,000,000 of the maximum debt amount regarding the instant real estate (hereinafter “the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the instant real estate”).

However, since the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on June 7, 2018 after one year from the Plaintiff, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it exceeds the exclusion period under Article 405(2) of the Civil Act.

B. In the exercise of one obligee’s right of revocation, “the date when the obligee became aware of the cause for revocation” means the date when the obligee became aware of the requirements for obligee’s right of revocation, that is, the date when the obligee became 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 was engaged in a disposal of the property, and that the juristic act is an act detrimental to the obligee, i.e., a lack of joint security of the claim, or a lack of joint security already in the situation, to fully satisfy the claim.