1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts - On May 21, 2009, the plaintiff filed a claim suit, such as a loan (Seoul Central District Court 2009da187680) against D, etc. on May 25, 2010 and sentenced on May 25, 2010 to the effect that "D shall jointly and severally with E, pay to the plaintiff KRW 131,193,326 and its delay damages." The above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). On April 10, 1962, F married with Defendant (Defendant in 1938) and married with G, D, and C. On September 25, 2001, F purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) on September 14, 200, and died on March 4, 201 while residing in the said apartment after completing the registration of ownership transfer on June 14, 2003.

On March 4, 2017, F’s successors, including D and the Defendant, agreed on the division of inherited property with the content that the Defendant succeeds to the instant apartment on the sole inheritance (hereinafter “instant division agreement”). Accordingly, the ownership transfer registration was completed on July 25, 2017 as the receipt of No. 92883 on the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch Office on the instant apartment as to July 25, 2017.

At the time of the instant split-off consultation, D was in excess of its obligation.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including attachment of provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts as to the cause of the claim, D’s waiver of inheritance rights to the instant apartment share upon the instant split-off agreement with the status of excess of its liabilities constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring any special circumstance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29119 Decided July 26, 2007, etc.). The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s loan claim against D has expired by prescription. However, even though the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s loan claim against D has expired by prescription, it is apparent that the instant judgment has not yet lapsed ten years since it is apparent that the instant judgment became final and conclusive. Therefore, the above assertion is

B. The defendant's assertion did not know the situation of D's debt, and his life as a person who returned the deceased.