1.(a)

As of February 16, 2015, the share of 2/13 out of the real estate stated in the separate sheet signed between the defendant and B.

Facts of recognition

On May 9, 2013, the Plaintiff was issued a payment order order against B to the effect that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 16,178,909 won and its 4,702,650 won per annum 20% per annum from the day following the day of service of the original copy of the payment order to the day of complete payment, and KRW 14,760 per annum for delayed payment and demand procedure expenses, which are calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from the day of service of the original copy of the payment order,” and the above payment order order order decision became final and conclusive around that time.

Attached Form

The real estate indicated in the list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was owned by C. Since C died on February 16, 2015, D, E, F, G, and B, the denying party, owned the instant real estate solely by the Defendant, and the ownership transfer registration was completed in the future on March 16, 2015 on the ground that the instant real estate was inherited by inheritance due to the foregoing consultation division.

C. B did not have any property other than the share 2/13 out of the instant real estate inherited from C at the time of the instant consultation division.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-14, fraudulent act, judgment of the purport of the entire pleadings, and the debtor who has already been in bad faith has renounced his/her right to his/her inherited property by giving up his/her right to his/her inherited property, thereby falling under a fraudulent act against the creditor in principle. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff's claim for the amount of the transfer money occurred prior to the agreement division. Eul reduced the joint security against the general creditor by making the agreement division with the purport of owning the shares of 2/13 of the real estate of this case, which is the only property of this case. Thus, the agreement division in this case becomes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff who is the creditor, and the defendant's bad faith is presumed to be a beneficiary.

On the defendant's argument.