1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 3, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a guarantee insurance contract for performance (payment) by setting the amount of compensation payment guarantee in accordance with the convenience store franchise agreement as “the insured” between D and Korea: Korea-Development range, 50,000,000 won: 50,000 won.

On August 2013, the Plaintiff claimed insurance payment from the Korea Development Bank Co., Ltd. in accordance with the above guarantee insurance contract and paid KRW 38,336,028 to the Korea Development Bank Co., Ltd. in May 9, 2014.

B. On July 29, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim for reimbursement against D as Seoul Central District Court 2014Kadan161224.

On October 16, 2015, the above court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.

On June 24, 2016, the appellate court rendered a judgment that "D shall pay to the Plaintiff 13,623,156 won and interest thereon at a rate of 6% per annum from May 10, 2014 to October 16, 2015, and at a rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (20% per annum)" (the foregoing judgment became final and conclusive on July 13, 2016.

C. On August 20, 2012, D entered into a sales contract with E with regard to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with KRW 150,00,000 as the sales price (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

E completes the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate on the same day.

E (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on January 1, 2013 and jointly inherited the Defendant A (the inheritance shares 3/7), Defendant B and C (the inheritance shares 2/7) who is his wife.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3, 4, Gap evidence 5-1, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Gap evidence 7 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The sales contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff when D, who was in excess of one debt of the Plaintiff’s assertion, sold the instant real estate to the Deceased.