2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is as indicated in the grounds of claim No. 2, and the summary of the content is as follows: “A contract with the Defendant on July 13, 2014 entered into with D on the agreement on division of inherited property on July 13, 2014 (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with respect to each real estate indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, where D, a debtor, was unable to repay his/her debts to the Plaintiff, shall be revoked because it constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff. Furthermore, the Defendant, a malicious beneficiary, must restore the original state to its original state, perform the procedure of cancellation registration, such as that described in paragraph (2) of the claim.”

B. Defendant’s summary 1) D was not insolvent at the time of the instant split-off agreement, and thus, the instant split-off agreement does not constitute a fraudulent act. 2) Even if D was insolvent at the time of the instant split-off agreement, the Defendant constitutes a bona fide beneficiary, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to whether a debtor's legal act is insolvent (1) refers to an act that causes damage to the creditor by reducing his/her active property, increasing his/her negative property, or deepening the fact that he/she has already been in excess of his/her obligation, and whether the debtor's legal act is in excess of his/her obligation is determined as at the time of the fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da118334, Apr. 26, 2013). The creditor who seeks revocation by asserting that the debtor's legal act, etc. is a fraudulent act must specifically assert and prove not only the existence of the preserved claim, the debtor's legal act, etc., but also the fact that the debtor was insolvent due to the juristic act, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da28686, May 31, 207).