1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff has a credit card price claim against B as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. B Concerning the instant shares, which are the sole property under excess of debt, the Defendant and the Defendant entered into an agreement on the division of inherited property on March 15, 2012 (hereinafter “instant agreement on division”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Defendant on the same day.

C. Therefore, the agreement on the division of agreement of this case must be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to pay the money stated in the purport of the claim to the plaintiff as compensation for value according to restitution.

2. In order to avoid the application of the exclusion period, the Plaintiff asserted the registration date of the instant real estate, which was prior to the expiration of the exclusion period, as the time of the instant agreement for division.

It is examined whether there was an agreement on the division of inherited property on March 15, 2012 between the defendant and B.

It is difficult to determine the date of such fraudulent act as the standard when the juristic act corresponding to the fraudulent act was committed, but it is difficult to determine the date of such fraudulent act. However, it is difficult to determine whether such fraudulent act was actually committed, focusing on the date on which the grounds for registration on the register, which appears based on the disposition document, cannot be determined.

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the Defendant’s transfer registration of ownership in the name of the Defendant with respect to the instant shares was made on March 15, 2012, the Busan District Court’s receipt of No. 12120, Jan. 11, 2012, and there is no other evidence to prove that the agreement for the instant agreement for the division was made on March 15, 2012, and the ownership transfer registration was made on March 15, 2012.

Therefore, on March 15, 2012, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that there was an agreement for division of consultation in this case cannot be accepted.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is without merit.