1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion asserts that the plaintiff's transfer of 2/11 shares out of the real estate in this case to the defendant constitutes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff by holding a division consultation on the real estate in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the real estate in this case") under the status that the plaintiff bears the obligation based on the authentic deed of promissory notes against the plaintiff. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that the transfer of 2/11 shares out of the real estate in this case constitutes a fraudulent act. The plaintiff's cancellation of the

2. Determination

(a) The date on which the legal act corresponding to the fraudulent act was actually committed should be determined as the standard when the standard period for determining the fraudulent act was time, but in cases where it is difficult to determine this, it can be determined as to whether such fraudulent act was actually committed, focusing on the date on which the grounds for registration on the register which appears based on the disposition document was based;

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da28819, 28826, Feb. 25, 2010). (B)

In this case, on November 6, 2014, the Intervenor issued a promissory note with the entry of the beneficiary, the Plaintiff, the face value of KRW 150,000,000,000 for the payment date, the issue date, the issue date, the place of payment, and the place of payment on November 6, 2014 in each Gyeonggi-do, and prepared a notarial deed on the said promissory note (Evidence 2). The Plaintiff had a claim against the Intervenor only on the said date.

B. Meanwhile, D, the owner of the instant real estate, died on October 25, 2013, and his co-inheritors completed the registration of inheritance on April 22, 2016 by the Defendant’s own inheritance of the instant real estate upon the division of inherited property (Evidence A1) and the Defendant and the Intervenor, etc., on November 6, 2014, inasmuch as there is no clear evidence to deem that the co-inheritors of the deceased, including the Defendant and the Intervenor, actually agreed on the division of inherited property after November 6, 2014, they were on October 25, 2013.