A. On May 20, 2015, between the Defendant and B.

A. Tae River Loans Co., Ltd. lent KRW 6,00,000 to B on March 3, 2011 at 24 months from the date of loan, the agreed interest rate, and the overdue interest rate, 44% per annum. The loan claims were transferred from Tae River Loans Co., Ltd. on November 11, 2013 and notified at that time, the Plaintiff again acquired the loan claims on June 19, 201 and notified the Plaintiff thereafter. The Plaintiff filed a payment order with the Seoul Northern Northern District Court 2015 tea8693 against B on June 2, 2015.

(The amount claimed shall be KRW 8,644,959 and shall be KRW 5,013,145, among the above amounts, shall be the damages for delay from February 10, 2015.

Attached Form

The list of real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was owned by C (hereinafter “the deceased”). The deceased died on April 1, 2015, and the deceased’s children were succeeded by D, B, Defendant, E, and F.

On May 20, 2015, the inheritors agreed on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant division agreement”) to solely inherit the instant real estate, and accordingly, on May 22, 2015, the registration for the transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant transfer registration”) was completed as of June 18, 2015, under the receipt of No. 14195 with respect to the instant real estate from the Gwangju District Court’s Netcheon Branch Branch Office of the Gwangju District Court (hereinafter “instant transfer registration”).

C. B at the time of the instant partition consultation, there was no particular active property other than the inheritance shares on the instant real estate, and was in excess of the debt.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

A. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff held a claim against B prior to the instant installment agreement, which became a preserved claim against the obligee’s right of revocation. 2) As to this, the Defendant’s defense that the extinctive prescription of the claim against the said amount has expired, this case’s loans against Tae River loan Co., Ltd. were due on the date of repayment of the loan against Tae River loan Co., Ltd. on the date of the instant installment agreement.