1. It was concluded on October 30, 2014 with respect to the portion of 1/4 out of the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and D.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 23, 2007, E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) filed a suit against D with the Busan District Court of the Dong Branch of the Busan District Court (hereinafter “E”) to pay the acquisition amount of KRW 3,398,800 and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from September 27, 2003 to April 18, 2007 and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. The judgment became final and conclusive on June 19, 2007.

B. On June 15, 2011, E transferred its claim against D to the Plaintiff. On December 30, 2016, E notified the Plaintiff to whom the notification of assignment was delegated by E.

C. F owned real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and died on April 4, 2014. At the time, F was the heir, who was the child, D, G, H, and Defendant.

D. On October 30, 2014, successors, including the Defendant, concluded an agreement on the division of inherited property to solely own the instant real estate (limited to the portion consisting of D and D’s inheritance shares, 1/4) to be owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant agreement on division of inherited property”).

On January 26, 2017, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 159,120,000 for the instant real estate to the Housing Urban Guarantee Corporation, and completed the registration of the transfer of ownership on December 15, 2016 to the I Zone Housing Reconstruction Project Association on the same day.

E. Meanwhile, D did not have any other property at the time of the instant agreement on division of inherited property.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence No. 1 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the agreement on the division of inherited property of this case with the purport of transferring one-fourths of the real estate of this case in which D, who was insolvent, is the sole active property, to the defendant constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to D, which is the creditor of D, and the defendant who is the deceased doctor and the beneficiary.