1. It was concluded on February 24, 2017 with respect to 2/17 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and C.

1. Existence of the preserved claim;

A. 1) On November 25, 201, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 9,80,00 to C with interest rate of KRW 12.7% per annum, KRW 21% per annum, and KRW 24 November 2012.2) The Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for a payment order under the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Hu29782, and filed the payment order with the said Court on December 15, 2015, and “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 17,18,376 won and its 9,798,583 won with interest rate of KRW 21% per annum from November 20, 2015 to the date of full payment, and the said payment order became final and conclusive as is.

3) On April 7, 1989, D completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant housing”). On February 24, 2017, D completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant housing on April 4, 2017, and died on February 24, 2017. Its wife is E, and its children are F, G, C, H, I, J, and Defendant. 4) The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant housing on April 4, 2017 due to inheritance by consultation and division.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence A Nos. 1 through 9

B. Since the Plaintiff gave a loan to C and then entered into an agreement on division of inherited property, the Plaintiff’s loan claim can be the preserved claim against revocation of the fraudulent act.

2. Whether the fraudulent act is constituted;

A. C, which is a debt excess of the judgment on the establishment of a fraudulent act, succeeded to 2/17 shares of the instant housing due to the death of D (no dispute over the fact that C is insolvent at the time of a split-off agreement on inherited property). Since joint collateral against the general creditor has been reduced by giving up the said shares, which are the only property in consultation on split-off of inherited property, while holding a split-off agreement on inherited property, it becomes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, the creditor, and the Defendant’

B. On the Defendant’s argument, C’s statutory inheritance amounting to KRW 16,470,58 (140,000,000 at the market price of the instant house around February 24, 2017) x 2/17, and C’s mother, who had managed the business in cash or D’s property by doping upon D’s existence, is the K Bank account in the head of E’s Tong.