1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's selective claims added by this court shall be dismissed.

1. The fact-finding and determination by the court of first instance is justifiable even if the result of response to the order to submit financial transaction information to the Director of the Han Bank Work Support Center of the court of first instance, which was duly adopted and investigated by the court of first instance, was presented.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is to delete “the Defendant” in Section 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and to accept the claim for revocation of fraudulent act and restitution, which the Plaintiff added to selective claims, as the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following separate determination, as it is, pursuant to the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the revocation of fraudulent act and the claim for restitution

A. The Defendant’s lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act of this case’s principal security defense is filed within one year from the date the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act in relation to the instant contract of this case’s transfer of claims after one year has elapsed since the lapse of one year from the Plaintiff, despite having known on November 24, 2015 that the instant contract of this case’s transfer of claims was concluded with respect to excess of the debt. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of a fraudulent act added by this court among the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case is unlawful as it was filed with the limitation

B. A lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act shall be brought within one year from the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation (Article 406(2) of the Civil Act). In the exercise of the obligee’s right of revocation, “the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation” means the date when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act while being aware of the fact that

It is not sufficient for the debtor to know the fact that he/she has conducted a disposition of property, and it is also required to know the existence of a specific fraudulent act and to know the fact that he/she had an intent to deceive the debtor.

Supreme Court Decision 209.3.