1. On March 23, 2009, 1/5 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and B is concluded.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Samsung Card Co., Ltd. transferred to Solomon Mutual Savings Bank the credit card payment claim against Samsung on December 20, 2005, and on April 26, 201, Solomon Mutual Savings Bank transferred the above claim to the Plaintiff on April 26, 201, and the above assignment of claim was notified to B, the debtor.

The amount of the instant claim is KRW 62,429,549 as of August 5, 2013 (principal KRW 20,104,550, interest KRW 41,828,478, and other KRW 496,521).

B. On March 23, 2009, the deceased on March 23, 2009, the owner of the real estate listed in the attached list B was the owner of the real estate listed in the attached list, and his children, D, B, E, and F, who were their inheritors, agreed on the division of the inherited property solely by the Defendant to inherit the real estate listed in the attached list on the same day (hereinafter “instant division agreement”). Accordingly, on March 30, 2009, the registration of ownership transfer was completed due to the inheritance by agreement and division as stipulated in Article 9068 of the Changwon District Court closely Assistance on March 30, 2009.

C. B, at the time of the split-off consultation, there was no particular property other than the share of 1/5 on the instant real estate, which is one’s statutory inheritance.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7 evidence, each entry of Eul 1 to 5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The agreement on the division of an inherited property established by a fraudulent act is that the ownership of the inherited property, in whole or in part, as to the inherited property provisionally owned by co-inheritors upon commencement of inheritance, becomes final and conclusive by performing as a single ownership by each inheritor or as a new co-ownership relationship, and therefore, it is therefore subject to the exercise of the right to revoke a fraudulent act. As such, in principle, a fraudulent act against a creditor who has already been in excess of the obligation may be subject to the exercise of the right to revoke a fraudulent act, even in cases where the joint security against general creditors has decreased by