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 reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the defendant's argument in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Judgment on the defendant's argument in the trial room

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit for revocation within one year from the date on which he/she became aware of the cause for revocation. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for claim for reimbursement (Seoul Central District Court 2013Kadan62931) against B on March 7, 2013, but the court failed to serve a copy of the lawsuit on the ground of “defluence” was perusal of the certified copy of the resident registration and the certified copy of the register on the B’s domicile at that time pursuant to the order for correction of address issued by the court, and thus, on April 15, 2013, upon receipt of the order for correction of address, he/she knew of the existence of the sales contract in this case and the fact that there is a shortage of joint security for the claim.

Even if it is not so, the Plaintiff was rendered a favorable judgment on September 11, 2013 as to the lawsuit for the claim for indemnity amount, and the enforcement title, delivery certificate, and confirmation certificate attached to the execution clause in order to prepare for compulsory execution against B, D, and C (hereinafter “non-party company”) on October 22 of the same year. It should be viewed that the Plaintiff knew the existence of the instant sales contract and that the joint security of the Plaintiff’s claim may be insufficient due to the perusal of the entire registered matters in the process. The instant lawsuit asserted that the instant lawsuit was unlawful, since it was filed on April 21, 2015, more than one year thereafter.

In the exercise of obligee's right of revocation, "the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause of revocation" means the date when the obligee becomes aware of the requirement of obligee's right of revocation, that is, the date when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act while being aware that it would prejudice obligee,