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

A. On May 23, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a payment order against B with the Seogu District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court Branch) No. 2014Da3518, and issued a payment order with the said court on May 23, 2014, stating that “The Defendant would pay to the Plaintiff 14,216,447 won and damages for delay at the rate of 17% per annum from May 21, 2014 to the date of full payment,” and the said payment order became final and conclusive as is.

B. C (1936 was born in 1936, hereinafter “the deceased”) married the Defendant (1941) with D, E, F, B N, and died on June 9, 2014.

C. On October 18, 1994, the Deceased acquired the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the grounds of sale as of September 16, 1994, and as above, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of the division of inherited property held on July 18, 2014 (hereinafter “instant division”) as of July 18, 2014, after the Deceased’s death.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s assertion B transferred 2/11 of his 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 the amount of the claim (16,90,971 won) as of August 8, 2017 against the Plaintiff, and since the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage after the above consultation division and the registration of the transfer of ownership was revoked, the amount of the claim and damages for delay should be restored to the original state directly paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the issue

A. The key issue in this case is whether the defendant can be seen as a bona fide beneficiary, that is, whether the defendant knew that it would prejudice the creditor B in the course of the consultation division between B and B.

B. Determination A: