beta
Text
1. It was concluded on September 19, 2016 with respect to 3/7 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and D.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 14, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D as Seoul Northern District Court No. 2017Da348995, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a judgment that “D shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 34.9% per annum from October 11, 2016 to the date of full payment” with respect to KRW 4,434,973 and its KRW 3,434,360 from the above court on April 14, 2017, and the said judgment was finalized on May 5, 2017.
B. As the Defendant’s mother-friendly E (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on June 26, 2016, the agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on the division of inherited property”) was concluded on September 19, 201, with the purport that D, the Defendant, and F shall have the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as the Defendant’s sole ownership on September 19, 2016.
C. D At the time of the agreement on division of the inherited property of this case
In addition to the obligations owed to the Plaintiff as described in paragraph (1), G Bank was insolvent such as 4,600,000 won, 9,000,000 won for H Bank (GGG) and 27,90,000 won for H Bank (FG) (FF) (FFF) and 4,80,000 won for I Bank (FFF).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, fact-finding inquiry results to J, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts found in the judgment on the cause of the claim, D, which bears the judgment amount of this case against the plaintiff, shall be deemed to have reduced the joint collateral against the general creditor by giving up his/her right to his/her share of inheritance while holding a consultation on the division of inherited property in insolvent. Thus, D’s agreement on the division of inherited property in question becomes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29119, Jul. 26, 2007).
Therefore, among the agreement on the division of inherited property of this case, the portion concerning D 3/7 shares, which is the share of D, should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant shall be restored to its original state.