소유권이전등기말소
1. As to the share of 1/3, which is the inheritance share of Nonparty B, among each real estate listed in the separate sheet:
A. Defendant and Nonparty B.
1. Around June 12, 2003, Nonparty B entered the Plaintiff’s loan to Nonparty C as a joint and several surety, and C did not pay the loan from October 1, 2003.
As of October 14, 2015, the obligation of the above loans as of October 14, 2015 is KRW 64,642,394 (= Principal KRW 12,206,484, interest of KRW 2,771,758, late interest of KRW 49,64,152).
B’s mother D died on August 18, 201, and the inheritor is a child, B, E, and Defendant.
The above inheritors agreed that the Defendant solely succeeds to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) (hereinafter “instant agreement on division of inherited property”), and the Defendant made a registration of transfer of ownership on November 5, 2012 (hereinafter “instant registration of transfer of ownership”).
At the time of the agreement on division of the inherited property of this case, B did not have any other property.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. Determination B on the cause of the claim reveals that the portion of 1/3 of the inherited shares, among the real estate of this case, which is one of its sole property, was placed in excess of the obligation by the Defendant’s sole inheritance. The agreement on division of the inherited property of this case constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff.
B's intention to commit suicide is also recognized, and the defendant's bad faith as a beneficiary is presumed.
The Plaintiff may cancel the agreement on division of the inherited property of this case as a fraudulent act and seek restitution to the Defendant.
B. The defendant's defense is proved to the effect that B obtained a loan on the real estate of this case as collateral and that the defendant repaid the real estate on behalf of the defendant, and thus the agreement on division of the inherited property of this case was made as a legitimate provision, but even if the defendant's above assertion is true, it is also in relation to other creditors that the debtor whose obligation exceeds the obligation transferred certain real estate to some creditors as