1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 11, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B on the claim for the amount of takeover with the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2014Da357660, and received a favorable judgment from the court that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 8,685,149, and delay damages therefor,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

C. C (1955, hereinafter “the deceased”) married with the Defendant (1952) and left D, E, B, and F NN under the supervision of the Defendant (1952), but died on February 26, 2016.

C. On September 20, 2005, the Deceased acquired the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) on the grounds of sale as of March 16, 2002, and as seen above, the registration of ownership transfer was completed for the Defendant’s future ownership transfer on the grounds of the division of inherited property held on February 26, 2016, which was after the Deceased’s death (hereinafter “instant division”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 4, 6, and 10 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act and Restoration to Original State)’s transfer of 2/11 of the instant apartment to the Defendant through the instant consultation division constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is a general creditor in B.

Therefore, the above consultation division should be revoked within the scope of the Plaintiff’s claim amount (11,239,598 won) against B. Since the registration of the establishment of the existing mortgage was revoked after the above consultation division and ownership transfer registration, the above agreement division should be restored to the original state by the method that the Defendant directly pays the Plaintiff the amount of the claim and damages for delay.

3. Judgment on the issue

A. The key issue in this case is whether the defendant can be seen as a bona fide beneficiary, that is, whether the defendant knew that the defendant would prejudice the creditor B in the course of the consultation division between B and B.

B. Determination Nos. 1 and 2 are written, and fact-finding as to the director of Busan Jin-si registry office of this Court.