1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The court's explanation of the facts of recognition and the grounds for this part of the parties' assertion are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

A. According to Article 406(2) of the Civil Act, a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act shall be instituted within one year from the date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause for revocation, and within five years from the date of the juristic act. Since this period is the period for filing a lawsuit, the court shall ex officio investigate whether such period is complied with, and dismiss the lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act instituted after such period expires

In accordance with what point of time, when there was a legal act corresponding to a fraudulent act, it shall be determined with careful consideration of the significant impact on the interests between the parties, and when there was a legal act corresponding to a fraudulent act, it shall be determined as of the date on which such fraudulent act was actually committed (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da73138, 73145, Jul. 26, 2002). However, barring any special circumstance, it shall be determined as to whether such fraudulent act was actually committed based on the date on which the grounds for registration on the register, which appears to be based on the disposal document, based on the date on which such fraudulent act was registered.

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da41589 delivered on November 8, 2002).

According to the statement of evidence No. 5-1 as to the instant case, it is recognized that the Defendant prepared “an agreement division of inherited property” with other co-inheritors, including C around March 23, 2017, immediately before the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate.

However, the fact that the reason for the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to the real estate of this case is "the inheritance by consultation and division on April 18, 1996" is as mentioned above, and the facts of this case are as follows.