1. As to shares in 2/7 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. The Defendant and Nonparty B concluded on August 13, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 12, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B against Daejeon District Court 2009Gaso65127, which rendered a judgment that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 4,138,074 won and 2,446,702 won with the interest of 25% per annum from July 21, 1999 to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. C, the father of B (hereinafter “the deceased”), died on August 13, 2014. The Defendant and his children, who were the wife of the deceased, agreed on the division of the inherited property that the Defendant would independently inherit the real estate indicated in the separate sheet owned by the deceased (hereinafter “instant real estate”). Accordingly, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 13, 2014 regarding the instant real estate on August 13, 2014 by agreement and division.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The agreement on the division of the inherited property established by a fraudulent act is to confirm the ownership of the inherited property by either having all or part of the inherited property owned by each inheritor separately or by performing it as a new co-ownership relationship with respect to the inherited property provisionally owned by co-inheritors upon the commencement of inheritance, and therefore, it is a juristic act the object of which is property right by its nature. Thus, it

(Supreme Court Decision 200Da51797 delivered on February 9, 2001). The claim of this case against B is the preserved claim of a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act. The act of transferring the ownership of inheritance shares among the real estate of this case, which is the only property of B, due to the agreement on the division of inherited property, to the defendant, who is his mother, constitutes a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the plaintiff, who is the creditor, barring special circumstances.