1. As to shares 2/7 of each real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. It was concluded on September 30, 2014 between the Defendant and B.

Attached Form

The entry of the cause of the claim (However, the inheritance shares in B are corrected to 2/7 shares) is recognized by each entry of Gap 1 to 5 (including the serial number) and the purport of the entire pleadings.

In principle, in cases where a debtor who has already been in excess of his/her obligation gives up his/her right to his/her share of inheritance while holding a divided consultation on inherited property, joint security against general creditors has decreased, it is presumed that the defendant's bad faith is a fraudulent

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff was partly repaid the preserved claim, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the agreement on division of inherited property constitutes a fraudulent act as seen earlier (the Supreme Court precedents cited by the defendant are different from this case), and the defendant's argument is not accepted.

Therefore, the agreement on the division of inherited property concluded between the defendant and B on the 2/7 share out of the real estate listed in the separate sheet should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration with respect to the above share in the original state

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.