1. The sales contract as of October 17, 2008 between the defendant and the non-party B is revoked.

2...

1. Facts without dispute;

A. On February 4, 2008, Nonparty B transferred KRW 469,795,080 to the Korea Industrial Complex Corporation of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Non-Party B”), which was acquired in KRW 240,000,000, KRW 2742 square meters (hereinafter “non-party property”).

B. B completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Defendant’s name, which was based on sale on November 17, 2008, No. 102693, Oct. 17, 2008 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), with respect to 3/8 shares (hereinafter “instant real estate”) out of 3274 square meters, the only property of the Defendant, Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, the Defendant, who was the owner of the instant real estate, and the Defendant is the owner of B.

C. On December 1, 2009, the Plaintiff was above B.

A notice of decision of correction of the total capital gains tax amount of KRW 122,955,059 (total amount of KRW 337,160,940, and total amount of capital gains tax base of KRW 321,598,477), which occurred in relation to the transfer of real estate in this case and the real estate in this case, B, including additional dues, as of the completion of pleadings, is 226,240,202.

2. As to the lawsuit of this case for which the plaintiff alleged that the contract of this case was a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, and that the contract of this case was revoked and restored to its original state, the defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case for which the limitation period of one year has elapsed since the plaintiff knew at least B's intention of death on April 2, 2009 or on December 1, 2009, should be dismissed.

However, the date when the creditor, which is the starting point of the exclusion period in the exercise of the creditor's right of revocation, becomes aware of the cause for the revocation is insufficient to simply recognize the fact that the debtor has conducted an act of disposal of the property, and it is also required to know the existence of specific fraudulent act and to know the fact that the debtor

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102 Decided March 26, 2009, etc.). However, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff could have known that the instant contract had been fraudulent around 2009, and instead, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff was fraudulent.