1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff has the principal and interest of loan against B.

On October 5, 201, the debtor B, was insolvent, and the defendant and the defendant agreed on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement”) that the land of this case, which is the inherited property of the decedent E, was entirely inherited by the defendant.

This is a fraudulent act in relation to the plaintiff as the creditor.

Therefore, the agreement of this case shall be revoked, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration with respect to the land of this case.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was that the instant lawsuit was filed more than five years after the date on which the fraudulent act was committed.

B. A lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act shall be brought within five years from the date of the occurrence of the legal act (Article 406(2) of the Civil Act). The term “the date of the legal act” means the date on which the legal act corresponding to the fraudulent act was actually committed

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da73138, Jul. 26, 2002). In addition, when a legal act constituting a fraudulent act was committed, the date on which such fraudulent act was actually committed shall be determined as the standard. However, in cases where it is difficult to determine it, etc., whether such fraudulent act was actually committed, centering on the date on which the grounds for registration on the register, which appears to be based on the instrument, can be determined.

(2) According to the records in Gap evidence No. 1, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to the land of this case can be recognized as having been based on inheritance due to a division of agreement between the Daegu District Court and November 5, 201, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the agreement of this case was made on another date after November 5, 201, according to the records in Gap evidence No. 1, 2007Da28819, Feb. 25, 2010. The agreement of this case was made on November 1, 2011.