1. The inherited property agreement concluded on February 21, 2017 between Defendant C and Nonparty E regarding the F apartment G in Gwangju Northern-gu.

1. Basic factual basis

A. The Plaintiff has a claim against Nonparty E (H) including KRW 36,173,239, which ordered payment in a judgment of November 25, 2014 in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da6198297, supra.

B. As to shares 1/2 of the F apartment G of Gwangju Northern-gu (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by E in line I (Death February 21, 2017), the registration of ownership transfer (No. 64760) was completed on April 12, 2017 in the name of the Defendants on the ground of the division of inherited property agreement on the date of the said death.

C. In addition to E and the Defendants, the deceased person’s bereaved family had the spouse J and K in addition to E and the Defendants.

E was in excess of the debt, and there was no active property other than 2/22 (spouse 22/10 and 22/10 of the children, respectively) of the inheritance shares in the instant real estate. E and the bereaved family members except the Defendants entered into an agreement on the division of inherited property to be succeeded by the Defendants retroactively from the date of the deceased person’s death (hereinafter “instant division agreement”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, such as the establishment of fraudulent act, the Plaintiff had a claim for the amount of money transferred to E at the time of the instant division agreement, which became final and conclusive by judgment.

The Plaintiff may seek revocation of the fraudulent act of the instant split-off agreement on the following grounds with the right to preserve the claim as the right to be preserved.

In other words, E is a fraudulent act in recognition of the fact that the division agreement may prejudice the claims of the general creditor, as it waives its inheritance shares while it comes to excess of the obligation and divided the instant real estate into the Defendants, thereby reducing the joint collateral for the general creditor.

And the defendants' bad faith is presumed to be beneficiaries.

Therefore, the instant divisional agreement is a fraudulent act.