1. Within the scope of the property inherited from the network G, Defendant C shall each be 49,500,000 won, Defendant D, E, and F.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs jointly owned 1/2 shares of H 6,545 square meters of forests and fields H Gun (hereinafter “the instant forest”) instead of Gyeongnam-gun, but decided to sell the instant forest upon the solicitation of the deceased G (hereinafter “the deceased”) and granted the Plaintiff the right of representation regarding the sale of the instant forest when entrusting the deceased with the sale of the instant forest.

B. On April 30, 2015, the Deceased concluded a contract with I to sell the instant forest in KRW 297 million on behalf of the Plaintiffs.

The Deceased received 297 million won from I in full from the proceeds of the instant forest, and I completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the said sales contract on May 6, 2015 with respect to the instant forest.

C. On October 28, 2015, the Deceased died, and Defendant C is the spouse of the Deceased, Defendant D, E, and J, who are the children of the Deceased, and the Defendants are the inheritors of the Deceased.

The Defendants reported the inheritance limited approval, and received the adjudication on the acceptance of each inheritance limited authorization, respectively, from Defendant C, D, and E on January 5, 2016, as the Changwon District Court was 2015-Ma252, and Defendant F was tried on November 21, 2017 as the same court 2017-Ma216.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, 11, 16, Gap evidence 12-10, 11, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On April 28, 2015, the deceased’s summary of the Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) paid KRW 20 million to Defendant D on April 28, 2015 while the deceased was insolvent, and paid KRW 17 million to Defendant C on May 29, 2015, and KRW 1 million on May 27, 2015, respectively, and each of the said monetary payment acts (hereinafter “each of the instant monetary payment”).

(2) The obligee asserts that the obligor’s legal act is a fraudulent act and seeks revocation and return as it constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general obligees. (2) The obligee seeking revocation as well as the existence of the preserved claim and the obligor’s legal act.