1. Of each real estate listed in the separate sheet between Defendant B, C, and D, 2/15 shares are concluded on May 2, 2013.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s claim 1 against B, C, and D was sentenced on February 4, 2005 to the judgment of Jeonju District Court 2004Gahap3689 against B, C, and D that “B, C, and D shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 806,164,400 and damages for delay against some of them,” and the judgment became final and conclusive. 2) The Plaintiff collected some of the amount of money after the judgment became final and conclusive, and the claim for the principal and interest of the judgment is KRW 787,726,132 and damages for delay from March 23, 2004 against KRW 778,652,575.

B. The father of B, C, and D died on May 2, 2013. The inheritor of E completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate in the Defendant’s future on July 1, 2013 due to the agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on the division of inherited property”) on May 2, 2013, on the ground that the Defendant’s spouse (spouse 3/15), children B, C, D, F, G, and H (each inheritance shares 2/15) will solely succeed to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

3) At the time of the instant agreement on the division of the inherited property, B, C, and D were insolvent. The fact that there was no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a result of the order of submission of each taxation information to the Seoul Guro-gu Office, Seoul Guro-gu Office, and the Seoul Gwangjin-gu Office, respectively.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In a case where a debtor in a state of excess of his/her obligation gives up his/her right to the inherited property while holding a divided agreement on the division of his/her inherited property, and thus the joint collateral for the general creditor has decreased,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29119 Decided July 26, 2007, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Da73765 Decided March 13, 2008, etc.) B.

In light of the above facts and legal principles, 2/15 of the agreement on the division of inherited property in this case, each of the inheritance shares in B, C and D, respectively.