beta
Text
1. On April 7, 2017, 1/5 shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and D are concluded.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 22, 2004, D entered into a credit card use contract with the Plaintiff. Since 2010, D delayed payment of the credit card fee.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order with the Incheon District Court No. 20155, 16216, and the payment order was issued on July 14, 201, and the payment order was finalized on August 18, 201.
The sum of the overdue amount as of November 28, 2018 reaches KRW 15,736,610 ( principal 5,324,950, number of overdue months 90-91).
B. The Defendant, D, G, H, and I, the inheritor, owned each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). However, on August 11, 1995, E died and thereafter, E’s wife F died, the Defendant, on April 7, 2017, entered into an agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on the division of inherited property”).
【Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Entry in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings】
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, at the time of the agreement on the division of inherited property of this case, the Plaintiff had the principal amount of credit card-based loans of KRW 5,324,950 and the late payment charges against D.
This is a preserved claim of creditor's right of revocation.
B. The agreement on the division of inherited property by fraudulent act is to confirm the reversion of inherited property by either having all or part of the inherited property owned by each inheritor as a sole ownership or performing as a new co-ownership relationship with respect to the inherited property provisionally owned by co-inheritors upon the commencement of inheritance (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da51797, Feb. 9, 2001). Therefore, it can be subject to the exercise of the right to revoke fraudulent act, since it is a juristic act aimed at property rights by its nature (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da51797, Feb. 9, 200).