A. It was concluded on December 1, 2017 between the Defendant and C (D).

A. On June 24, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) held the claim amounting to KRW 191,280,194 as of December 26, 2019, based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da18022 Decided June 24, 2016 with respect to Section C; (b) E (C’s spouse) who was the owner of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) died on or around December 1, 2017; (c) the heir (3/7 shares); (d) the Defendant, F (2/7 shares each of the instant real estate was solely owned by the Defendant; (e) the agreement on division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on division of inherited property”); and (e) the fact that each of the instant real estate was not subject to any dispute over the inheritance transfer registration under the name of the respective parties to the instant real estate or that each of the instant property was subject to any dispute over the inheritance transfer registration under the name of the respective parties to the instant real estate.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the agreement on the division of inherited property of this case constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, and sought its revocation and restitution.

2. Defenses before the merits;

A. The Defendant asserted that, around December 6, 2018, G corporation requested debt collection from the Plaintiff knew of the agreement on division of inherited property of this case, which is the cause of cancellation, and the ownership transfer registration under the name of the Defendant. (In the process, G corporation visited and searched the instant real estate that was made by the Defendant on December 6, 2018, and became aware of the cause of cancellation by confirming the registration of the instant real estate in its process), the instant lawsuit filed after the lapse of the exclusion period of one year thereafter is unlawful.

(b) the exclusion period under Article 406(2) of the Civil Act.