2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

2. The defendant shall comply with the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of the transfer of ownership, which has completed the indictment of all-round the Jeonju District Court with respect to one-half shares of the apartment of this case to ○○○.

○ The Plaintiff paid loans to ○○○○ Bank in excess of KRW 20,531,44 in accordance with a credit guarantee agreement. On July 11, 2016, the said payment order became final and conclusive on August 11, 2016, upon filing an application with the Jeonju District Court for a payment order against ○○○ Bank.

○ Meanwhile, on the other hand, the father died on January 29, 2018, and ○○○ entered into an inherited property division agreement with the Defendant, who is ever, that he does not inherit his property. Accordingly, on February 19, 2018, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant on the ground of inheritance by agreement division as to the instant apartment on the ground of inheritance by agreement division. Then, on March 27, 2018, ○○ renounced inheritance with the Jeonju District Court.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence No. 1-5, Eul evidence No. 1-1, Eul's statement No. 1, the purport of the whole legal theory

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s claim constitutes a fraudulent act, even though ○○○ did not have any specific property, to waive his/her right to the share of inherited property upon consultation on the division of inherited property with respect to the apartment of this case, constitutes a fraudulent act even though he/she knew that it would prejudice the Plaintiff as a bond holder, and thus, the Defendant, the beneficiary, who is the beneficiary, seeks restitution

B. On the other hand, the agreement on division of inherited property becomes final and conclusive between co-inheritors upon the commencement of inheritance and the establishment of the ownership of the provisionally-used inherited property, and can be a fraudulent act as stipulated in Article 406(1) of the Civil Act. On the other hand, the renunciation of inheritance is deemed to have never been an inheritor, and thus, the status as an inheritor itself has ceased to exist as it is deemed that the inheritor was not an inheritor from the beginning, and from the standpoint of the obligee, even if there is a low expectation, the heir’s property right does not become more worse than the current status, and thus, the revocation of fraudulent act is not subject to a fraudulent act.

According to the above case, upon the death of ○○○’s father, he renounced his inheritance after consultation with the Defendant, who would not inherit his father’s property. If so, the agreement on division of the inherited property is premised on the renunciation of inheritance by ○○○○○ in the future, so long as ○○ legally renounced inheritance, it is reasonable to view that the agreement on division of the inherited property can not be subject to revocation of fraudulent act, as in the renunciation of inheritance, unless ○○ legally renounced inheritance by ○○○.

C. As to this, the Plaintiff: (a) divided the shares of inheritance into shares of inheritance before the renunciation of inheritance by ○○○○; (b) so, it appears to have granted simple approval as stipulated in Article 1026 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act; and (c) thereafter, the renunciation of inheritance is null and void. However, in a case where the content of the agreement on the division of inheritance does not recognize the right to inherited property on the premise of the renunciation of inheritance, it cannot be deemed as an act of disposal on inherited property, and thus, the above assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without any need to further examine the current status of ○○○’s property and debt, the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.