beta
Text
1. The agreement between the defendant and C on the inherited property entered into on November 28, 2015 shall be divided.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 2017, the Plaintiff’s credit against C acquired the Plaintiff’s credit for loans from April 30, 2008 (the principal remaining as of September 28, 2017, KRW 31,966,965, delay damages damages, KRW 37,173,71) with the Plaintiff against C.
B. On November 28, 2015, the Defendant, C, etc. and five children, including the Defendant and C, jointly succeeded to the division of inherited property (1) network E (hereinafter “the deceased”).
(2) On November 28, 2015, the inheritor made an agreement on the division of inherited property with the content that the Defendant owns the instant real estate solely on November 28, 2015, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the Defendant on January 7, 2016, and the Defendant again completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant on September 19, 2016.
(3) The value of the instant real estate at the time of commencement of the inheritance is the aggregate of KRW 385,833,050.
C. C was insolvent at the time of the instant consultation and division.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 14, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Since a claim against the establishment of a preserved claim against C has existed prior to the instant agreement division, it shall be the preserved claim in the obligee’s right of revocation.
B. It is deemed that C, which bears the debt against D, a transferor of the plaintiff's fraudulent act, has reduced the joint security against the general creditor by giving up his right to his share of inheritance while making the agreement division in insolvent. Therefore, this becomes a fraudulent act, and the defendant's intention to commit a fraudulent act is presumed.
Ultimately, the instant partition agreement should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the method of restitution should be the equivalent compensation, as it is impossible or considerably difficult to return the original property due to the completion of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of a third party after the fraudulent act on the instant real property.