1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. On March 22, 2011, the non-party limited company B (a limited liability company D prior to the change; hereinafter “B”) (a debtor of the non-party corporation C (hereinafter “C”) entered into a real estate security trust agreement (hereinafter “instant trust agreement”) with the Defendant to grant the first priority right to the Nonghyup Bank under the status of excess of the obligation, and completed the registration of the instant real estate in the name of the Defendant.

On February 11, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lien, assignment of claims, and transfer of claims (hereinafter “instant contract for acquisition of claims”) with C, and acquired claims against C.

Therefore, the instant trust contract should be revoked as a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors including the Plaintiff who acquired the claim from C, and the Defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of the trust in the name of the Defendant, which was completed on the instant real estate to the original state following the cancellation.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The gist of the defense of this case is unlawful as it was filed after the lapse of the exclusion period.

B. 1) Where an obligor has established a trust with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee, the obligee may file a claim for revocation and restitution under Article 406(1) of the Civil Act even if the trustee is bona fide (Article 8(1) of the Trust Act). The lawsuit for revocation and restitution claim shall be filed within one year from the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation (Article 406(2) of the Civil Act “the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation”, which is the starting point of the limitation period, in exercising the obligee’s right of revocation, refers to the date when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor knowingly committed a fraudulent act, i.e., when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor was aware of the fact that the obligor conducted a disposal of the property, which is insufficient to say, that the legal act is prejudicial to the obligee.