1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the former representative of Nonparty E, and Nonparty F, G, and H are those who were involved in the G Apartment-si construction of the G Apartment-si (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. On September 29, 2010, H constituted Non-Party D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party D”) and was the representative director of the said company.

C. On March 2, 2012, Nonparty Company entered into a sales contract with Defendant B, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 5, 2012. Defendant B entered into a sales contract with Defendant C on September 8, 2015, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 8, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the defense prior to the merits 1) The "date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation" means the date when the obligee becomes aware of the requirements for the obligee's right of revocation, i.e., the date when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that the obligee would prejudice the obligee. Thus, it is insufficient simply to recognize the fact that the obligor committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that the obligor committed a disposition of the obligee's right of revocation. It is necessary to inform the obligor of the fact that the legal act was insufficient to satisfy the claims completely due to the lack of joint security of claims or the lack of joint security already in the situation that the obligor would cause damage to the obligee, and further, it is necessary to inform the obligor of the fact that the obligor had an intention to cause revocation, on the ground that the obligee had known of the objective fact of the fraudulent act, and the burden of proof as to the lapse of the exclusion period is the other party to the obligee's revocation lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da4294.