1. It is concluded between the defendant and the non-party C as to one-third share of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 1, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty C with Seoul Central District Court No. 2012 Ghana46895, and was sentenced to the judgment that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 13,171,006 won and 3,499,952 won with 20% interest per annum from January 13, 2012 to the date of complete payment,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

B. On April 21, 2017, Non-party C, the heir of Non-party C, the Defendant, and Non-party C, and E, the heir of Non-party C (hereinafter “instant real estate”) made an agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on the division of inherited property”) with the intent of the Defendant to own the real estate, which is the deceased’s inherited property (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On June 12, 2017, the Defendant completed the registration of the transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant on the ground of inheritance by agreement and division.

C. At the time of the instant agreement on the division of inherited property, C was in excess of its obligation, and there was no particular active property.

The publicly announced price at the time of closing the argument of the instant real estate is KRW 42,000,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and fact-finding results by the court below's fact-finding, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Establishment of a fraudulent act;

A. In a case where the joint security against the general creditor has decreased as the obligor, who is in excess of the obligation of the right to revoke the fraudulent act, waives his/her right to the inherited property upon the split-off agreement, constitutes a fraudulent act against the obligee in principle

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29119, Jul. 26, 2007). Accordingly, the waiver of one’s share in the inherited property in relation to the instant real estate constitutes a fraudulent act, and the Defendant’s bad faith as a beneficiary is presumed, and the Plaintiff may exercise the right to revoke the fraudulent act against the Defendant.

B. The defendant's bona fide defense is the same.