1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The grounds for the instant claim are identical to “the grounds for the instant claim” and “the changed grounds for the claim,” and it can be acknowledged in full view of the entire purport of the oral argument as a result of the fact-finding inquiry in the instant case and the entire purport of the argument.

(However, the part that the defendant was well aware of his/her property status and his/her intention to harm is excluded). 2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant paid KRW 30 million to E, which is his legitimate share through the agreement on the division of inherited property, and did not know that it was a fraudulent act, and thus, the agreement on the division of inherited property is not subject to revocation.

B. The agreement on the division of the inherited property, upon the commencement of inheritance, becomes final and conclusive by settling all or part of the inherited property, which is the sole ownership of each inheritor, or by performing as a new co-ownership relationship, and therefore becomes subject to the exercise of the right to revoke a fraudulent act. Meanwhile, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the debtor’s act of either replacing the inherited property, which is one of his sole property, with money that is easily consumed or transferring it to another person without compensation, becomes a fraudulent act against the creditor. Thus, if the debtor in excess of his/her obligation already was already paid a cash easily consumed by giving up his/her share of inherited property and then, such act is different from that of changing the property, which is the sole property of his/her own property, into money that is readily consumed by the debtor, barring special circumstances.

(Supreme Court Decision 2007Da73765 Decided March 13, 2008). Meanwhile, the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed in a revocation suit.