1. The inherited property concluded on September 14, 2016 between the defendant and C as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

Facts of recognition

On August 28, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C with the Plaintiff seeking the payment of a loan, and was sentenced to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Da175710, that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 36,862,815 won and 30,000,000 won, interest rate of 19% per annum from May 10, 2008 to July 30, 2008, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The instant judgment became final and conclusive on September 18, 2008.

The deceased D, the father of C’s division contract of inherited property, died in around 2016, and the defendant (the deceased’s share 3/11), who is the deceased’s spouse, E, C, F, and G (the shares in inheritance 2/11) jointly inherited each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On September 14, 2016, the above co-inheritors entered into an agreement on division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant division agreement”) with the content that the instant real estate is owned solely by the defendant. On October 17, 2016, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of the instant division agreement in the name of the defendant as the permanent registry office of the Daegu District Court received on October 17, 2016.

At the time of the division consultation of the instant case, C had no particular property other than 2/11 shares of his/her statutory inheritance regarding the instant real estate as active property, while C had already been in excess of his/her liability due to the Plaintiff’s burden of liability according to the instant judgment.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 (including each number, if any) and the defense prior to the merits of the whole pleadings, the defendant's judgment as to the defense prior to the merits of the whole pleadings. Since the plaintiff's loan claim against Eul, which is a preserved claim for creditor's revocation, has already expired by prescription, and the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights, the lawsuit of this case