[2] Whether a fraudulent act constitutes a case where an obligor in excess of his/her obligation waives his/her share of inheritance regarding real estate, the sole inherited property, and receives cash instead, in consultation on division of inherited property (affirmative)

The agreement on the division of inherited property becomes a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring any special circumstance, inasmuch as it becomes the object of the right of revocation of a fraudulent act, since it becomes a juristic act for the purpose of property rights by confirming the attribution of inherited property by comprehensively or partially owning the inherited property, which is a provisional co-inheritors, upon the commencement of inheritance, or by performing as a new co-inheritors, with respect to the inherited property, which is a provisional co-inheritors's sole ownership or new co-ownership (see Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da51797, Feb. 9, 2001). Meanwhile, the debtor's act of selling and selling real property, which is only one of his own property, and changing or transferring it to another person without compensation, becomes a fraudulent act against the creditor (see Supreme Court Decisions 200Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001; 2002Da17937, Jun. 11, 2002).

The court below acknowledged that the non-party 1, who had no particular property in excess of a large amount of debt, such as the burden of debts to the plaintiff only for the plaintiff, obtained the inheritance of the deceased non-party 2, the non-party 3, 4, 5, and 6, upon consultation on the division of inherited property between the defendant, non-party 3, 5, and 6, who is another co-inheritors, and agreed to waive 2/13 of the deposit in the name of the deceased, and receive 80,000,000 won, which is one of his inheritance shares of the above real estate, although only the deposit in the name of the deceased was 74,751,574 won, as stated in the attached list of judgment of the court below, and the non-party 1's above act constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, which constitutes a fraudulent act, and it is subject to the cancellation of the inheritance agreement on the inheritance shares of the non-party 1 for the above real estate.

In full view of the evidence adopted by the court below, the court below did not seem to have erred in violation of the rules of evidence in the court below's fact-finding, and in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the court below's determination that the above act constituted a fraudulent act by Nonparty 1 was just, but there were no improper parts in its expression, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the reasoning, the burden of proof, or the establishment of fraudulent

As long as the above agreement on the division of inherited property itself constitutes a fraudulent act, whether Nonparty 1 was actually paid KRW 80,00,000 shall not affect the establishment of a fraudulent act, and therefore, the remaining grounds of appeal by the Defendant is not required to be determined.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)