1. The inherited property concluded on June 19, 2019 between the defendant and C with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 6, 2016, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation”) transferred the claim for 4,91,936 won and delay damages incurred therefrom, which were held against C on December 8, 2006 by the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation”) to the Plaintiff before December 6, 2016 (hereinafter “instant principal and interest claim”), and the said assignment of claims was notified to C at that time.

B. Meanwhile, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of E with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). However, on June 19, 2019, E died, and his/her spouse and children C, G, H, and Defendant were the inheritor.

On June 19, 2019, the Defendant completed the registration of the Busan District Court and the registration of transfer of ownership (hereinafter “instant registration of transfer”) under the receipt of No. 43136 on September 4, 2019 on the instant real estate due to inheritance by agreement division (hereinafter “instant agreement on division of inherited property”).

C. At the time of the split-off consultation of the instant inherited property, C had no positive property in addition to the inheritance shares in the instant real estate.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the claim for the transfer-in-aid in this case is subject to the preservation claim for revocation of fraudulent act, unless there are other special circumstances.

As to this, the defendant's defense that the extinctive prescription of the claim for the amount of money taken over was completed after ten years from the time when the decision on performance recommendation was made in a prior suit.

According to the purport of the whole argument by the evidence as seen above, although the decision of performance recommendation was confirmed on December 30, 2006, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff had re-extinctive prescription suspended, the plaintiff's defense was examined, Gap evidence No. 5, and the whole purport of the arguments in this court, based on the above claim for performance guarantee.