1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts C died on November 26, 201. The inheritor was the Defendant, D, E, and B. However, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under its sole name on the ground of inheritance due to the agreement and division as of May 17, 2011 as to the instant real estate owned by the deceased C.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that as the joint collateral against the plaintiff, who is a general creditor, has been reduced by giving up his right to the inherited property as a result of the division consultation with the co-inheritors, including the defendant, on the inherited property of this case, which had already been in excess of the debt, between B and co-inheritors including the defendant, the above agreement on division of inherited property constitutes a fraudulent

In this regard, the defendant asserts that B did not take part in the division consultation of the above inherited property by giving up the inheritance.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul filed a report of renunciation of inheritance with the Seoul Family Court 2012-Ma917 on February 3, 2012, and the above court accepted the above report on April 13, 2012, and the remaining co-inheritors, except for Eul who renounced inheritance, agreed on the division of inherited property with the purport that the real estate of this case should be owned solely by the defendant (However, the date of preparation of the agreement on division of inherited property was stated as the date of the deceased's death). Accordingly, the defendant can recognize the fact that the registration of transfer of ownership is completed solely in its name with respect to the real estate of this case,

According to the above facts of recognition, it cannot be deemed that there was an agreement on the division of the inherited property between B and the Defendant that the Plaintiff asserted as a fraudulent act, and further the renunciation of inheritance does not constitute a revocation of fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da29307, Jun. 9, 2011). As such, the instant real property between B and the Defendant is about the instant real property.