Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 15,131,956 and KRW 11,249,40 among them, per annum from January 29, 2020 to the day of full payment.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of each statement in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), defendant B entered into a credit card use contract with D on August 9, 2010 and received credit cards around that time. The overdue interest rate of the credit card payment is 22.5% per annum to 24% per annum, Eul transferred the credit card payment claim against the defendant B to E on July 31, 2018, and Eul transferred the above claim to the plaintiff on December 14, 2018, and as of January 28, 2020, E Co. transferred the above claim amount to the plaintiff on December 14, 2018, the above claim amount is 15,131,956 won including principal, 11,249,400 won as of January 28, 200, the defendant B is obligated to pay the plaintiff 15,131,96 won as the transferee of the claim, and 19,290 won as the last interest rate of 19.

The Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendant C with respect to the above fact is as seen earlier, and comprehensively taking account of the description Nos. 4 through 7 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings and the result of the fact inquiry with respect to the Minister of Court Administration of this Court, it can be acknowledged that, as the networkF died on April 21, 2019 and the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was inherited to the Defendants who are children, Defendant B succeeded to 1/2 of the instant real estate, and Defendant B succeeded to 1/2 of the instant real estate. However, Defendant B agreed on the division of inherited property with Defendant C on October 31, 2019 that the instant real estate should be owned solely by Defendant C, and at the time, 1/2 of the instant real estate was the only real estate owned by Defendant B.

According to the above facts of recognition, the above agreement on division of inherited property is prejudicial to the creditors including the plaintiff, and should be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act, and the defendant C as a restoration to its original state.