1. The agreement between the defendant and C on the inherited property concluded on July 14, 2017 with respect to 3/7 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

1. On March 22, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim for loans against C, etc. by Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Da334349, and rendered a favorable judgment against C, etc. on March 22, 2013, that the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 39,00,000 and delay damages therefor to the Plaintiff. The said judgment became final and conclusive on April 12, 2013.

D, the spouse of C, died on July 14, 2017, and the heir has C, the spouse of C and E.

The Defendant, C, and E entered into an agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on division”) with the content that the Defendant would not succeed to and control the ownership of the attached real estate owned by D, and accordingly, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Defendant on the ground of inheritance due to the above agreement division.

C was in excess of the obligation at the time of the agreement division contract of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, since the Plaintiff’s claim against C had existed prior to the agreement for division in this case, it becomes a preserved claim for obligee’s right of revocation. It constitutes a fraudulent act against the obligee, in principle, even in cases where a debtor in excess of his/her obligation waives his/her right to inherited property in the agreement for division of inherited property and thus the joint security against the general obligee has decreased by giving up his/her right to inherited property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29119, Jul. 26, 2007). Thus, barring any special circumstance, the obligor’s transfer of real estate, which is one of his/her sole property, to another person without compensation, constitutes a fraudulent act against the obligee, and thus, the obligor’s intent to understand is presumed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 201).