1. Inherited property concluded on June 10, 2014 between the Defendants and C with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet.

1. According to the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the order of submission of tax information by Gap's evidence 1 to 11 and Eul's evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), and by the purport of the entire pleadings, the facts stated in the separate sheet can be acknowledged.

2. The establishment of a fraudulent act and its original state;

A. The agreement on the division of an inherited property established by a fraudulent act is to confirm the reversion of the inherited property by having all or part of the inherited property temporarily owned by each inheritor as the sole ownership by each inheritor or as a new co-ownership relationship with respect to the inherited property, and thus, it is a juristic act aimed at property rights in its nature. Therefore, the act of the debtor selling and consuming real property only to money easily for consumption or gratuitously transferring to another person becomes a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring any special circumstance. Thus, even in cases where the debtor in excess of his/her obligation has reduced joint security against the general creditor by waiver of his/her right to share of inherited property upon consultation on the division of inherited property, it constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor in principle.

(Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29119 Decided July 26, 2007). According to the above facts of recognition, C is in excess of its obligation.

The act of giving up 25/375 shares out of the real estate of this case, which is the only property of this case even if the debts are exceeded, and transferring to the defendants constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, who is the creditor, and the defendants' bad faith is presumed as the beneficiary, unless there are special circumstances.

As to this, the defendants asserted that it was difficult for the defendants to adjust the shares of inheritance to the complex and the shares of inheritance were transferred to the defendants' name for convenience, and there was no intention to harm the plaintiff.