1. D and the Defendants concluded on July 24, 201 with respect to shares of 2/11 of each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

1. Facts recognized;

A. The Plaintiff has a monetary claim amounting to D at the rate of 38.9% per annum from October 28, 2015 to the date of full payment, with respect to KRW 5,804,930 and KRW 3,218,048 among them.

B. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) was owned by E, and E was dead on January 11, 2017 and succeeded to each of the instant real estate by F, F, G, D, and D, who are the spouse.

C. On July 24, 2017, the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 1/2 shares among each of the above real estate on July 28, 2017, following the agreement on division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on division”).

D At the time of the split-off consultation, there was no particular active property except for the inheritance shares of 2/11 of each of the instant real estate at the time of the split-off consultation.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings (including evidentiary number)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As recognized prior to the occurrence of the right to revoke a fraudulent act, the act of abandoning the inheritance share of each of the instant real estate, which is the only property of the Plaintiff, through the instant division consultation with the obligor in excess of the obligation, constitutes a fraudulent act as an act of causing or deepening the shortage of joint security against the general creditors including the Plaintiff, and is presumed to constitute a fraudulent act.

Therefore, the instant partition agreement between D and the Defendants regarding share 2/11 of each of the instant real estate should be revoked.

B. The defendants' assertion that the division agreement of this case was concluded according to the intention of the deceased E, so the defendants not only do it constitute fraudulent act but also the defendants cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim as a bona fide beneficiary. However, the above assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

(c) registration to indicate ownership in the future of the method of reinstatement.