1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as shown in Appendix 2.

B. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion is that F was donated with a considerable amount of money prior to the death of the inheritee, and considering this, the agreement on the division of inherited property of this case does not constitute a fraudulent act.

2. The key issue of the instant case is whether the F’s amount received in advance exceeds the F’s statutory inheritance, and thus, is examined as to this.

A. The relevant legal doctrine’s agreement on division of inherited property is to confirm the attribution of inherited property by either having all or part of the inherited property temporarily owned by co-inheritors upon commencement of inheritance as sole ownership by each inheritor or performing as a new co-ownership relationship. As such, it is a legal act aimed at property rights in its nature, and thus, it may be subject to the exercise of the right to revoke a fraudulent act. Meanwhile, even in a case where a debtor in excess of the debt already renounced his/her right to the inherited property while giving up his/her right to the inherited property, thereby falling under a fraudulent act against

(Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29119 Decided July 26, 2007). Meanwhile, as a result, a debtor in excess of his/her obligation waives his/her right to inherited property while holding a divided agreement on inherited property, the joint security against general creditors has been reduced.

Even if the division of property is not recognized to have less than the extent corresponding to the above specific share of inheritance, it shall not be revoked as a fraudulent act, and even if it falls short of the extent corresponding to the specific share of inheritance, the scope of revocation as a fraudulent act shall be limited to the deficient part.

At this time, the circumstance that the specific inheritance share, such as the existence of special benefits, differs from the statutory inheritance share, should be asserted and proved by the debtor.

Supreme Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on February 9, 2001