1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty B with the Jeonju District Court Decision 2015Gau10172, the District Court in charge of the Jeonju District Court’s 2015Gau10172, and on May 13, 2015, the Plaintiff received a decision of performance recommendation from the said court that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 38,653,084 and its delay damages.”

B did not raise an objection, and the decision was finalized on June 3, 2015.

B. Nonparty C, the father of Nonparty B, died on March 9, 2010, and C has the heir B and the Defendant, and the inheritance shares of Nonparty B are 2/11.

C. On March 9, 2010, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant was completed on May 3, 2010 on each real estate listed in the separate sheet, which was owned by C (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. B, in excess of the Plaintiff’s assertion, concluded a contract with the Defendant on division of the inherited property solely inherited by the Defendant with the aim of evading compulsory execution by concealing the obligees’ assets and evading compulsory execution. The above contract is null and void as a juristic act or false declaration contrary to social order.

Therefore, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant, which is completed with respect to shares 2/11 of the instant real estate due to the above contract, is null and void. The defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership with respect to the said shares due to the restoration

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the above contract between the Defendant and B constitutes a juristic act or false representation in violation of social order, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant paid KRW 50 million to B in return for the transfer of the above shares.