A. It was concluded on April 28, 2016 between the Defendant and B.

A. On December 3, 2013, the Plaintiff received a payment order against B, which stated that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 24,007,075 won and 6,495,363 won a year of 20% interest from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of full payment,” and the above decision became final and conclusive on December 24, 2013.

B. B’s father C died on April 28, 2016, and jointly succeeded to the property of the Defendant and his/her children, the spouse, B, and D.

(Shares of inheritance shall be Defendant 3/7, and 2/7 of their respective children).

On April 28, 2016, Defendant, B, and D, the co-inheritors of the network C, obtained an agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on the division of inherited property”) solely inherited by the Defendant with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”). Accordingly, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer on the ground of the instant agreement on the division of inherited property under Article 1968 of the Daejeon District Court’s universal registry office received on August 25, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 12 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above fact of recognition of the existence of the preserved right, the Plaintiff’s claim for the amount of money taken over against B was incurred prior to the agreement on division of inherited property in this case and becomes the preserved claim.

B. The agreement on the division of the inherited property by fraudulent act and intention of piracy is to confirm the reversion of the inherited property by either having all or part of the inherited property, which was provisionally owned by co-inheritors upon commencement of inheritance, as the sole ownership of each inheritor, or performing it into a new co-ownership relationship, and therefore, it can be subject to the exercise of the right to revoke the fraudulent act, and on the other hand, the debtor's only property.