1. On March 11, 2016, based on the ruling of provisional seizure of claims (No. 2016Kadan956), the Defendant rendered against E by the Incheon District Court on March 11, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff A is the wife of the network F, and E, the plaintiff B, C, and D are the children of the network F and the plaintiff A.

The networkF died on November 17, 2015, and the plaintiffs and E jointly inherited the networkF.

B. On March 11, 2016, the Defendant received the ruling of provisional seizure of claims against E by the Incheon District Court 2016Kadan956 (hereinafter “instant provisional seizure”), and the said court served the garnishee on March 15, 2016.

C. On March 16, 2016, the Plaintiffs and E did not inherit the net F’s inherited property, and the Plaintiff inherited the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 5, and among the total deposit claims listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3,461,358,738, Plaintiff B, C, and D received KRW 500,000,000, respectively, and Plaintiff A received the remainder of KRW 1,961,358,738, respectively, and the Plaintiff inherited the vehicle listed in the separate sheet No. 4, and the Plaintiff agreed on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on division of inherited property”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 11 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion 1) since the plaintiffs' assertion E has special benefit from the legal portion of inheritance, the plaintiffs and E have reached an agreement on the division of inherited property with no inheritance regarding inherited property. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claims subject to the provisional seizure of this case are owned by the plaintiffs. 2) The defendant's agreement on the division of inherited property of this case constitutes fraudulent act with the aim of prejudice to the obligees of this case.

B. We examine the determination as to the cause of the claim, and the fact that the plaintiffs and E did not succeed to the claims listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and the plaintiffs inherited and agreed on the division of the inherited property of this case as they did not conflict between the parties. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant's compulsory execution against the claims listed in the separate sheet No. 1 of March 15, 2016, based on the provisional attachment against E, shall not be permitted.