1. As to shares in 2/7 of each real estate listed in the Schedule,

A. B signed on July 12, 2016 with the Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 28, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court against B seeking the payment of the acquisition amount (2017 Ghana517995) after acquiring the claim, such as a loan, etc. from the Korea Asset Management Corporation, and the said court rendered a judgment on May 17, 2017, stating that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 4,064,832 and delay damages.”

B. However, on July 12, 2016, C, his father, died on July 12, 2016. The inheritor was the Defendant, the spouse, and B and D, but on the same day, the inheritor agreed on the division of inherited property, including B’s statutory inheritance (2/7 shares) regarding each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet listed in C owned by C (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

C. Accordingly, on November 1, 2016, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant real estate by accepting the indictment of all-round court on the grounds of inheritance based on the above division agreement.

On the other hand, B was in excess of obligations at the time of the above installment agreement.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, since B, in excess of debt, renounced his/her right to inherited portion among the real estate of this case through the above division consultation, and the Defendant, alone, inherited the real estate of this case, thereby reducing his/her property subject to joint security against the general creditors in shortage, such act constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors of B including the Plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

Furthermore, it is reasonable to view that B was aware of the circumstances that it would prejudice the creditor, including the plaintiff, at the time of the above division consultation, and the defendant's bad faith as a beneficiary is presumed also presumed.

Therefore, above.