1. The plaintiff's amendment of the purport of the claim and the judgment of the first instance court upon the plaintiff's successor's motion for intervention in succession are as follows

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s explanation is as follows, except for the addition of “this Court” to “the court of first instance” under the third 12th th 12 or less of the reasoning for the judgment, and the third th 14th th th th 14 is the same as the ground for the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited pursuant to the main text of Article 420 of

C. On August 17, 2015, when the first instance court lawsuit was pending, the Plaintiff transferred the claim as set forth in Paragraph (a) to the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, and then sent the same to C via content-certified mail. The above notification reached C around that time.

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. As to the exclusion period Do and argument, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor's claim for the cancellation of the instant sales contract and the cancellation of the transfer registration of ownership are unlawful because the exclusion period of the fraudulent act revocation lawsuit has lapsed.

The "date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause of revocation", which is the starting point of the exclusion period for the exercise of the creditor's right of revocation, means the date when the creditor becomes aware of the requirement of the creditor's right of revocation, that is, the date when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the

However, it is a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances that the debtor sells real estate, which is the only property in excess of his/her obligation, and alters it into money easily consumed.

In addition, the obligor's intent of deception, which is a subjective requirement for fraudulent act, is aware that there is a shortage of joint security for claims, and it is not necessary to avoid or intend to prejudice the obligee.

Therefore, if the debtor sells real estate, which is the only property, and alters the money easily to consume, the debtor's intent to understand is presumed. Therefore, the debtor disposes of real estate, which is the only property, and the debtor disposes of it in addition to that real estate