A. On October 25, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a claim against B for payment order claiming the amount of KRW 4,690,000 per annum from Jeju District Court Decision 2008Da843, and damages for delay at the rate of 17% per annum from October 25, 2003 to the date of delivery of payment order, and from the next day to the date of full payment. On March 27, 2008, the above order was finalized on May 17, 2008 upon receipt of payment order from the above court.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant claim”). B.

B If the deceased’s wife C (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on September 28, 2014, the deceased’s co-inheritors agreed on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on division of inherited property”) to the effect that the Defendant unilaterally succeeds to the land and buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land and buildings”) owned by the deceased on October 6, 2014 as the wife D, the Defendant, his children, and B, E, F, and G as co-inheritors. Accordingly, on March 24, 2015, the Defendant completed the registration of the transfer of ownership (hereinafter “each ownership transfer of this case”) due to inheritance by agreement division as of October 6, 2014.

C. Meanwhile, at the time of the instant agreement on the division of inherited property, B did not have any property other than the inheritance share on the instant land and building.

In the instant land and building, the right to collateral security was established on December 12, 2003, the maximum debt amount of KRW 200,000,000, and the debtor, the deceased, and the Korean Agricultural Cooperative, an agricultural cooperative, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security. However, the said right to collateral security was fully repaid KRW 2,880,000 on March 18, 2015, and the said right to collateral security was revoked on May 14, 2015.

[Ground of the lower court’s judgment, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the share of inherited property, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the share of inherited property, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.