사해행위취소
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant A is the wife of the network F, and E, Defendant B, C, and D are children of the network F and Defendant A.
The networkF died on November 17, 2015, and the Defendants and E jointly inherited the networkF.
B. The Plaintiff has a total of KRW 1,188,727,352 as to E, and on March 11, 2016, the Plaintiff received a provisional attachment order against the netF’s claim against the garnishee as indicated in attached Table 1, which he/she succeeded to the networkF, by Incheon District Court 2016Kadan956 (hereinafter “instant provisional attachment”), and the said court served a written notice on the garnishee on March 15, 2016.
C. On March 16, 2016, Defendants and E did not inherit the net F’s inherited property; Defendant A inherited real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 5; Defendant B, C, and D inherited KRW 500,000,000 each of the deposit claims listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3,461,358,738; Defendant A inherited the remainder of KRW 1,961,358,738; Defendant A inherited a vehicle listed in the separate sheet No. 4; Defendant A agreed on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on division of inherited property”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. 1) The summary of the parties’ assertion 1) Since the lack of joint collateral occurred due to the Plaintiff’s agreement on the division of inherited property in this case, the agreement on the division of inherited property in this case constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the obligees of E. 2) The Defendants’ assertion that E is a special benefit from the legal portion of inheritance. As such, the Defendants and E did not receive inheritance in respect of inherited property.
Therefore, the agreement on division of the inherited property of this case does not constitute a fraudulent act.
B. As to whether the agreement on division of inherited property of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, the legal doctrine regarding the division of inherited property of this case and the agreement on division of inherited property has commenced and co-inheritors.