1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 29, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment order with the Seoul Northern District Court 2014 tea 501, the Seoul Northern District Court (hereinafter “Seoul Northern District Court”) with B, who was ordered to pay the Plaintiff KRW 19,088,855, and KRW 9,302,663, among them.

(b) The father of B was deceased and the wife of D and the deceased C, who are children of the deceased C, E, the Defendant, B, and F, who were the children of the deceased C, were the co-conceptors of the deceased C.

C. The registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant was completed as of January 13, 201 by the Daegu District Court on April 2, 2007 due to the agreement division of the inherited property as of April 2, 2007 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is the deceased C’s inherited property (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 3 through 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) held the above payment order against the Plaintiff B, and B entered into an agreement on the division of inherited property with the Defendant on January 13, 201 on the actual waiver of the inheritance shares 2/11 of each of the instant real estate, which is one of the only property owned by the Defendant, and on the same day on the same day, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant solely for each of the instant real estate was completed. The agreement on the division of inherited property between the Defendant and B constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditors of the Plaintiff including the Plaintiff, and it is impossible to return original property due to the establishment of collateral security right after the fraudulent act. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of the claim based on the above payment order as compensation for value.

(2) The lawsuit of revocation of the fraudulent act of this case filed after the lapse of five years from April 2, 2007, where the agreement on division of the inherited property of this case was entered, is unlawful after the lapse of the exclusion period.

B. At any time of determination, a legal act constitutes a fraudulent act.