1. As to shares in 2/9 of the real estate listed in the Schedule:

A. It was concluded on December 11, 2012 between the Defendant and B (C).

1. Basic facts

A. B used a credit card with a credit card issued on January 26, 2005 from the Korea CTR Bank, and around April 2010, the overdue charge of credit card was 6,390,000 won.

B. On September 29, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired credit card payment claims against the Korea C&C Bank on December 24, 2014, and filed an application for payment order (Seoul Northern District Court 2014Guj 49506) against B on December 24, 2014. On January 28, 2015, the said court ordered the Plaintiff to pay “B to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 12,016,550 (i.e., the principal amount of KRW 5,083,297, KRW 6,93,253, and KRW 29.9% per annum of overdue interest rate)” and the decision was finalized on February 24, 2015.

B. Meanwhile, upon the death of B’s father on December 11, 2012, the Defendant, children, E, B, and F, who are the wife of the network D, made an agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on the division of inherited property”) with the content that the Defendant would own the attached real estate, which is the inherited property on the same day (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

Accordingly, the defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the defendant as of April 23, 2013, received on April 23, 2013, by the Busan District Court's Dong Branch Branch of the Busan District Court for the reason of the agreement on division of the inherited property.

C. B is, at the time of the instant agreement on the division of inherited property, and is currently insolvent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

(a) If the obligee’s claim to be preserved has been established prior to the transfer of a fraudulent act, the assignee may exercise the obligee’s right of revocation even if the claim has been transferred, and in such a case, even if the obligee’s claim has satisfied the requirements for setting up against the assignment of claim after the fraudulent act, the assignee cannot be an obstacle

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da5822 delivered on June 29, 2006, Dominl, and Dominl Bank.