In light of the above debt and property status of B, the relationship with the Defendant, etc., it is recognized that the waiver of the right to their share of inheritance upon consultation on the division of the inherited property with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet in the status of B without any specific property is a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the Plaintiff, who is the obligee. As such, insofar as it is recognized as the intent of harm of B, the Defendant, who is the beneficiary,

2. As to this, the defendant asserted that after the death of the defendant, the defendant was the mother's mother and did not know about the defendant's debts and other properties at the time, the defendant did not have any evidence to acknowledge that the defendant was the good faith by reversing the presumption as mentioned above.

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the beneficiary has the burden of proving that the beneficiary was the fraudulent act, and in recognizing that the beneficiary had acted in good faith at the time of the fraudulent act, the objective and acceptable evidence, etc. should be supported, and it should not be readily concluded that the beneficiary had acted in good faith at the time of the fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da61280, Jul. 4, 2006). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation of the fraudulent act and restitution of the original status should be accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition.