1. As to shares 2/17 of each real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. It was concluded on December 14, 201 between the Defendant and B.

1. The facts of recognition B obtained a loan of KRW 20 million from the Industrial Bank of Korea on March 14, 2003, and Tranchis Loan Co., Ltd., the transferee of the above loan claims, received a payment order (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Hu126865) from B, and the Plaintiff received a succession execution clause by taking over the above payment order claim on August 13, 2013.

On December 14, 2011, the Defendant and B died on December 14, 201, and the inheritor was a spouse and a child registered by one.

On May 23, 2013, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant alone, based on the agreement on division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on division of inherited property”) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by C (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 6, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s claim against B acquired by the Plaintiff regarding the cause of the claim is apparent to have occurred before the agreement on division of the inherited property of this case. Thus, the obligee’s right of revocation may become the preserved claim.

According to the evidence Nos. 3 through 5, it is recognized that B was insolvent at the time of the division of the inherited property of this case. It is a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, who is the creditor, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary, that B made a division agreement on inherited property with the inheritance share equivalent to 2/17 of the real property of this case as the sole ownership of the defendant.

Therefore, the agreement on the division of the above inherited property B and the defendant should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for 2/17 shares of the pertinent real estate as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article due to restitution to its original state (the defendant's assertion that he contributed to the maintenance of the instant real estate does not affect the establishment of a fraudulent act and the scope of restitution to its original state). Thus,