beta
Text
1. As to shares 2/11 of each real estate listed in the separate sheet:
A. It was concluded on January 19, 2014 between the Defendant and B.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 12, 2014, the Plaintiff finally acquired the credit card payment claim against B by transfer among several financial companies. The amount of the above credit is KRW 5,900,000 as of August 16, 2012 and interest KRW 15,251,634 as of August 16, 2012.
B. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet was owned by B’s co-ownership, and four children, including the Defendant and B, the spouse, due to the death of C, succeeded to each of the above real estate.
C. Four children, including B, and the Defendant decided on January 19, 2014 to jointly own each real estate listed in the separate sheet as the Defendant’s sole ownership on the following grounds: (a) on January 19, 2014, the agreement for division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement for division”); and (b) on February 10, 2014, the registration of ownership transfer for each of the said real estate was completed in the Defendant’s future (hereinafter “instant registration of ownership transfer”) as the receipt of Cheongju District Court Decision 4761 on February 10, 2014.
B At the time of the division of the above inherited property, there was no other property except 2/11 shares of one's own inheritance shares among each immovable property listed in the attached list.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, B transferred 2/11 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is one of its sole property, to the Defendant through the instant agreement for division (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da10134, Jun. 24, 2015). This constitutes a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da10134, Jun. 24, 2015). Since the Defendant’s intent to cause damage is presumed, the instant agreement for division of consultation on 2/11 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet should be revoked. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure
3. The plaintiff's conclusion is that of this case.