beta
Text
1. On May 15, 2017, the Defendant and Nonparty C concluded on May 15, 201 with respect to 2/7 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff filed a payment order against D and C with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2015 tea24634, May 22, 2015, with respect to KRW 18,045,854, and KRW 11,678,593 as to KRW 11,67,593, jointly and severally, to the Plaintiff, and the amount of money and demand procedure expenses calculated at the rate of 37% per annum from October 19, 2012 to the date of full payment, and C received a payment order with the purport that “within the limit of KRW 65,00,000,000” and the said payment order was finalized on April 29, 2016.
B. E, the father of C, owned the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and died on March 5, 2017.
C. The heir of E had C and F, the spouse of the Defendant and his/her children. However, on May 15, 2017, they agreed on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant division agreement”). Accordingly, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership (hereinafter “instant transfer of ownership”) due to inheritance by agreement division under Article 34154, which was received from the Seoul Northern District Court’s receipt of the Northern Branch Office of the Seoul Northern District Court on the same day.
Not only at the time of the split-off consultation, but also C is in excess of its obligation without positive property.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 6 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. (i) The legal doctrine on the cause of the claim (i.e., division of inherited property) is a legal act in which the attribution of inherited property is finalized by either having all or part of the inherited property, which was provisionally owned by the co-inheritors upon commencement of inheritance, as the sole ownership of each inheritor, or having been performed as a new co-inheritors, and thus, having become subject to the exercise of the right of revocation of fraudulent act. Meanwhile, the obligor is himself.