1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff’s claim 1) On October 7, 2002, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 5,00,000 to C on October 7, 2002 at the rate of 10.5% applicable, interest rate of arrears 19%, and due date of October 7, 2003 (hereinafter “instant claim”).

(2) On September 22, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2008Guj10911 against C on September 22, 2008, and received the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The payment order was finalized on November 22, 2008.

B. On July 23, 1980, C and D, the father of the Defendant, died on July 23, 1980, and C and their inheritors, including the Defendant, agreed on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant division agreement”) with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet, which is the deceased’s property (hereinafter “instant real estate”). Accordingly, on October 8, 2014, the ownership transfer registration based on the instant division agreement was completed on October 8, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the agreement on the division of inherited property was made on October 8, 2014, which was not on July 23, 1980, but on which the actual registration was made, which was not on the date on which the cause for registration was indicated, and that the sole property of C was transferred to the Defendant through the instant agreement on the division under insolvent by asserting that the transfer of 2/11 shares, the inheritance shares of the instant real property, among the instant real property, constitutes a fraudulent act, constitutes the revocation of the instant agreement and the recovery of the cause thereof, and seek the registration of ownership transfer in the C’s future, which was completed to the Defendant based on the

As to this, the Defendant agreed on the division of this case on July 23, 1980, before the Plaintiff’s secured claim was established, and thus, it does not constitute a fraudulent act, and even if it constitutes a fraudulent act, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case constitutes a fraudulent act.