1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 16, 1996, the Plaintiff concluded an agreement with C with credit card holders to pay the amount used by C to the affiliated company and received the credit card payment from C. Since December 25, 2012, C has the obligation to pay the credit card payment to the Plaintiff as of August 20, 2014 (the principal amount of KRW 7,628,80 among them).

On the other hand, C has no other property.

B. The father B of C died on June 6, 2014, and the heir is the defendant, the wife of C, and C and D.

C. At the time of death, the instant apartment was established with the deceased’s inherited property, but on August 5, 2014, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of the agreement on the division of inherited property under the name of the Defendant on June 6, 2014.

On October 14, 201, the deceased B, on October 14, 201, had C leave the title “the horse flab to be left to his own food” (hereinafter “the will of this case”) in an envelope written as a will.

The head of the instant will was prepared in a way that: (a) the full text of the content that “the Defendant’s contribution, the mother of the family head, was managed and operated by the Defendant; and (b) the date, address, and name, and signed and sealed the will at the time of the Defendant’s leaving the Defendant.”

E. C applied for the seal of approval of the testator’s certificate with the Seoul Family Court 2014Ja-30766, and completed the procedure of seal of approval on the will of this case on January 14, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. (1) The agreement on the division of inherited property that the Plaintiff (1) transfers to the Defendant the inheritance shares on the instant apartment, the sole property of which the obligor C is the property under excess of the obligation, constitutes a fraudulent act.

(2) This case’s testamentary book is merely managed and operated by the defendant.