2...

A. The Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Gaso2215882 held a claim about B with respect to the amount of KRW 16 million based on the judgment on a loan claim lawsuit, the Plaintiff was granted an execution clause after the transfer of the above claim, and the succeeding execution clause was served on B.

Following B’s death, the Defendant, children, B, E, and F, who are the deceased’s spouse, jointly succeeded to the instant real estate. On January 29, 2012, the Defendant et al. completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Defendant’s sole name as to the instant real estate on June 21, 2012.

B did not have any property at the time of the above division consultation or the date of the closing of the argument in this case.

[Ground of recognition] A-1-17 evidence, Eul-2 and 5 evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings are as follows: (a) the transfer of the real estate portion to the defendant without compensation, which constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the plaintiff, who is the creditor; and (b) the defendant's bad faith, who is the debtor, the debtor, and the beneficiary, is presumed, respectively.

Therefore, the agreement on the division of inherited property regarding the instant real estate between B and the Defendant should be revoked as a fraudulent act.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant did not know the plaintiff's claim at the time of the agreement on division of inherited property, and if he knew that B was in excess of debt, he did not consult on division of inherited property. Thus, the defendant is a bona fide beneficiary.

However, in light of the fact that the other creditors of B filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act with respect to the above division agreement, and that the defendant is expected to have been aware of the property status of B as the mother of B, the evidence of Eul 1 alone is in bad faith.