1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Of the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and B, 2/7.

Facts of recognition

Pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the reasons to be stated in this part shall be cited in the part of "1. Recognition" in the judgment of the first instance.

The judgment of the court of first instance on the defense before the merits cited the part "2. Judgment on the defense before the merits of this case".

According to the facts acknowledged prior to the existence of the preserved claim, the Plaintiff already held the claim amounting to KRW 25,891,330 against B prior to the agreement on the division of the inherited property of this case, and damages for delay. Thus, the above claim constitutes the preserved claim amounting to the obligee’s right of revocation.

In principle, even if the joint security against the general creditor has decreased due to the debtor who had already been in excess of his/her obligation, while giving up his/her right to his/her inherited property, it constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor in principle.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29119, Jul. 26, 2007). Meanwhile, barring any special circumstance, an obligor’s act of transferring real estate, which is one of his/her sole property, to another person without compensation, constitutes a fraudulent act against a creditor, and thus, the obligor’s intent to cause harm is presumed and the burden of proving that the transferor did not have bad faith is the beneficiary

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the agreement on the division of agreement in this case, which is the only property B, owned by the Defendant, shall be deemed as a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors including the Plaintiff, and in such a case, ① the intention of murder in B, the debtor, and the defendant's bad faith as the beneficiary, are presumed to have been presumed to have been committed.

The summary of the defendant's assertion B that there was no intention of deception against B as to the defendant's argument was believed to have been extinguished by the extinctive prescription of the above preserved claim, and the remaining birth of B who is another inheritor is also the defendant's real estate of this case.