2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. B, on July 18, 2011, filed an application with the Plaintiff for membership with a credit card, and used the credit card from the Plaintiff. From May 2014, B delayed payment of the credit card price as of March 17, 2017 (i.e., KRW 20,460,114 in total, as of March 17, 2017 (i.e., KRW 11,393,85 in use of the credit card amount of KRW 16,168 in arrears of interest KRW 475,403 in arrears).

B. The deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) was married with the Defendant, and died on October 9, 2016, and three children, including the Defendant and B, jointly inherited the deceased’s property. On October 9, 2016, the above inheritors entered into an agreement on division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on division”) with the content that the Defendant’s sole ownership of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). Accordingly, the Seoul Southern Southern District Court received on November 22, 2016, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the Defendant’s future as of November 22, 2016.

C. B was in excess of obligations at the time of the instant split-off consultation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including additional evidence) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act and Restoration to Original State)’s transfer of 2/9, one’s share of inheritance among the real estate in this case, to the Defendant through the instant agreement division constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is a general creditor in B.

Therefore, the above consultation division should be revoked within the scope of KRW 20,460,114 of the Plaintiff’s claim amount against B. Since the registration of the establishment of the existing ownership after the above consultation division and the registration of the transfer of ownership was revoked, the above agreement division should be restored to the original state by the method of compensation directly paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition of preserved bonds, this case’s division consultation and this case’s case.