A. The Plaintiff filed an application against C for a payment order with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2016 tea426897, Nov. 18, 2016 that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 5,924,790 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 49% per annum from October 15, 2016 to the date of full payment” with respect to KRW 1,99,930 among the above money, and the said payment order was finalized on April 4, 2017.

B. D is the father of C and owned each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) but died on or around December 15, 2017.

C. Around December 15, 2017, the Defendant, the spouse of D, E, F, and C, who are children, shall enter into an agreement on the division of inherited property solely owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant division agreement”). On May 15, 2018, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership (hereinafter “instant transfer of ownership”) as described in Paragraph (2) of the Disposition on the ground of the instant division agreement with respect to each of the instant real property.

C At the time of the split-off consultation, a small-sized property was in excess of active property, and 2/9 shares of each of the instant real property was the only property.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including paper numbers), response of taxation information submission order to the Busan Metropolitan City Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City Office, the result of response to the order of credit information submission to the G organization of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s claim against C as to the existence of the preserved claim is a claim already incurred at the time of the instant division consultation, and becomes a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation.

B. In a case where the joint security against the general creditor has decreased as the obligor, who had already been in excess of his/her obligation, gives up his/her right to his/her inherited property while consulting on division of inherited property, it constitutes a fraudulent act against the obligee in principle.