1. It is concluded between the Defendant and C on August 24, 201 with respect to shares in 2/11 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 3, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Gwangju District Court No. 201Gapo54135, and sentenced that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 17,027,600 and interest calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from October 25, 2003 to April 28, 201, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
B. The real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was originally owned by C, the husband of C, and D died on August 24, 2017, and at the time there was the Defendant, the husband of C, E, F, and G as the property heir.
C. On August 24, 2017, successors, including C and the Defendant, entered into an agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on the division of inherited property”) with the content that the Defendant independently succeeds to the instant real property. On August 24, 2017, successors, including C and the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant on September 20, 2017, based on inheritance by consultation and division on August 24, 2017.
At the time of the agreement on the division of inherited property, C was insolvent, and there was only 2/11 shares of the instant real estate as active property.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings
A. The agreement on the division of inherited property is to confirm the reversion of inherited property by either wholly or partially owning the inherited property of each inheritor or performing it as a new co-ownership relationship with respect to which a provisional co-inheritors jointly owned inherited property had commenced upon commencement of inheritance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da51797, Feb. 9, 2001). Since it is a juristic act aimed at property rights by nature, it may be subject to the exercise of the right to revoke fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da51797, Feb.