beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff has a claim for the amount of KRW 23,044,740 against D and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from October 25, 2003 to 20% per annum.
B. On January 13, 2018, D’s A’s A’ died on January 13, 2018, and as the heir of the network E (hereinafter “the deceased”) there is not only D but also F and C, the mother of D, the siblings.
C. On February 1, 2018, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on January 13, 2018 on each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Deceased on January 13, 2018 due to the inheritance due to the consultation and division.
At the time of the deceased's death, D was in excess of its obligation without any particular property.
[Reasons for Recognition: Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13, and the fact inquiry results of the Gangseo-si, G, and Gangnam Tax Office of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. The agreement on the division of inherited property to determine the cause of a claim is a juristic act aimed at property right by its nature, and thus, can be the subject of the exercise of the right to revoke a fraudulent act. In principle, even if the joint collateral against the general creditor has decreased due to the waiver of the right to the inherited property by the debtor in excess of his/her obligation upon the division agreement on the inherited property
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29119 Decided July 26, 2007). According to the above facts, the Plaintiff has a claim against D with respect to the instant real estate, and this is a claim arising prior to the agreement on division of inherited property with respect to the instant real estate, and thus, the obligee’s joint security has been reduced by the agreement on division with the intent to waive 2/9 of the statutory inheritance portion of the instant real estate in excess of the obligation without any particular property. As such, the above agreement on division constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the obligee, and thus, D’s obligation has not been increased due to the agreement on division.