A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B with respect to the claim for the amount of the transfer income, and received the judgment for the claimant in the order of “B shall pay the Plaintiff 20% interest per annum from September 5, 2015 to September 30, 2015, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” (Supreme Court Decision 2015Da6271 Decided November 3, 2015). This was finalized on November 21, 2015.

B. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name C was completed on August 8, 200 as the receipt of No. 9222 on August 8, 200, by the head of Gwangju District Court for the purpose of sale on August 1, 200.

C. On July 6, 2015, C died, and the Defendant and B jointly inherited the deceased’s property rights and duties.

Around July 6, 2015, the Defendant and B agreed on the division of inherited property with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is the inherited property of the deceased (hereinafter “instant agreement on division of inherited property”). Around July 6, 2015, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership for each real estate listed in the separate sheet, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, as the head of the Gwangju District Court No. 10873, Oct. 20, 2015, based on the inheritance by agreement division, on July 6, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, 2-1, and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for revocation of fraudulent act

(a)the existence of the preserved claim is based;

The Plaintiff’s claim for the amount of transfer against B, recognized in this subsection, may be a preserved claim seeking the revocation of the agreement on the division of inherited property of this case.

B. The Plaintiff, Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., the Nonghyup Bank, the Native Savings Bank, and the KScom Co., Ltd. at the time of the consultation on the division of the inherited property of this case, in full view of the purport of the entire arguments as to the entries in the evidence Nos. 3 through 5, and the deceased’s liability was borne by the deceased.