1. Of each real estate listed in the separate sheet between B and the Defendant, 2/17 shares are concluded on February 14, 2013.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At the time of February 14, 2013, the Plaintiff had a claim for the amount of money (4,463,936 won and damages for delay from January 15, 1998, as to KRW 3,133,341 out of the amount of KRW 4,463,936, and KRW 3,5634, which became final and conclusive by Daejeon District Court Decision 2008Gada15634 with respect to B.

B. C, the father of the Defendant and B, died on November 28, 1989, and the statutory inheritance portion for the inheritors at that time is as follows:

[1] The Civil Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 4199 of Jan. 13, 1990 (hereinafter “former Civil Act”).

) Neither children of D EF G BH I, who have inherited to his or her husband and wife, who were not in the same family register, and whose father and wife were not in the same family register, 6/30 1/30 6/30 6/30 4/30 4/30 4/30 4/300 of the shares of the Defendant’s inheritance 6/30 6/30,30 6/30 of the shares of the Defendant’s inheritance.

C. On February 14, 2013, the above inheritors, including Defendant and B, (G died on April 6, 199 and J, K, and L, which were their successors), concluded an agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on the division of inherited property”) with the purport that each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) owned by C was owned solely by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant agreement on the division of inherited property”).

Accordingly, the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer of each of the instant real estate on the same day.

At the time of the division consultation of the inherited property of this case, B did not have any property.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1-7 evidence, Eul 1-1 evidence (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the fact inquiry to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of this court, and the Dong-gu Office in Yannam-si, Yan-si, the whole purport of the pleading

2. Determination on the establishment of fraudulent act

A. According to the facts found in the determination on the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff may exercise the obligee’s right of revocation to preserve the claims indicated in the decision on performance recommendation against B, and the Plaintiff may hold the obligee’s right of revocation to vest in the Defendant the share of 4/30 of his statutory inheritance among each of the instant real estate in excess of his/her obligation, barring special circumstances.