1. As to shares 2/13 of each real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. It was concluded on May 14, 2013 between the Defendant and B.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 1, 2010, 2010, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from May 27, 2008 to the date of full payment, with respect to KRW 5,240,449, and KRW 2,551,000, which the social company that created the Plaintiff’s claim against B, transferred to B the Plaintiff the claim for damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from May 27, 2008 to the date of full payment. On November 9, 2010, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the assignment

B. 1) B’s father, such as the agreement on the division of inherited property of this case, died. At the time, C’s inheritor, who was the spouse, was the Defendant, B, E, F, and G. 2) The inheritor of C, on May 14, 2013, entered into an agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on the division of inherited property”) solely owned by the Defendant as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”).

On November 26, 2013, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name based on the agreement on division of inherited property as the Daegu District Court’s Maritime Affairs Office received on the same day under No. 13415 on the same day.

C. At the time of the instant agreement on division of inherited property B, B did not have any particular property other than inherited property from C.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, each fact inquiry result against the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and the Daegu District Court's Maritime Affairs Office, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Unless there are special circumstances, B’s agreement on the division of inherited property among the real estate in this case, which is one of its sole property in excess of debt, becomes a fraudulent act against creditors, including the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29119, Jul. 26, 2007). The Defendant’s bad faith, a beneficiary, is presumed.

B. The Defendant did not know that it did not have any exchange with B and thus did not incur an obligation to the creditor including the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant alleged it in good faith.