With respect to the share of 2/13 of each real estate listed in attached Tables 1 and 2 between the Defendant (Appointed Party) and B.

A. B did not pay each national tax (a total of KRW 104,963,300) as indicated in the attached Table 2, for which a tax liability arises between April 1, 2003 and April 1, 2006, and the total amount of the delinquent tax reaches KRW 172,979,690 as of April 24, 2017 (hereinafter “instant tax claim”). (b)

B’s father C died on January 13, 2015, co-inheritors, such as the deceased’s spouse D, B, the deceased’s children, the Defendant, the designated parties, and E, and F, respectively, owned by the Defendant’s sole possession, and the designated parties’ sole possession of each real estate listed in [Attachment 1] Nos. 1 through 7 of [Attachment 1] as of April 23, 2015, and the remaining co-inheritors made an agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on the division of inherited property”).

C. B was insolvent at the time of the instant agreement on the division of inherited property.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, B, who bears the instant tax obligation against the Plaintiff, shall be deemed to have reduced the joint collateral against the general creditor by giving up his/her right to his/her share of inheritance while holding a consultation on the division of inherited property under insolvent. Thus, B’s agreement on the division of inherited property becomes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29119, Jul. 26, 2007) and B’s intent to commit suicide is presumed. 2) The Defendant’s objection against the Defendant’s defense is proved to have extinguished by the prescription period. (1) The fact that the payment period of the instant tax claim was from April 25, 2003 to May 1, 206, as described in the attached Table 2, is clear that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit was filed on April 24, 2017 after the lapse of five years from the Plaintiff’s lawsuit.

However, in full view of the contents of No. 10 No. 10 and the purport of the whole pleadings.