The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 11, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) decided to substitute KRW 200,000,000 to C with the annual interest rate of KRW 2%; (b) without specifying the period of repayment; and (c) decided to lose the benefit of time if the payment of interest is delayed for at least 15 (15) days; and (d) decided to substitute the said amount with the annual investment amount of the casino business that

B. D died on March 16, 2015, and the husband, F, C, and the Defendant jointly inherited D’s property.

C. Around that time, E, F, C, and Defendant entered into an agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the content that the Defendant’s sole ownership of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer regarding the instant real estate on June 30, 2015.

From March 16, 2015 to the closing date of the instant pleadings, the value of the instant real estate is KRW 200,000,000. At the time of the instant partition consultation, the right to collateral security was established with the amount of KRW 65,00,00,00, the value of the instant real estate as well as the period between March 16, 2015 and the closing date of the instant pleadings. At the time of the instant partition consultation, the right to collateral security was revoked on July 16, 2015, and at the same time, the right to collateral security was newly established with the amount of KRW 72,00,000, the Defendant

[Recognition] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2, and 3; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the establishment of a fraudulent act (1) In a case where a debtor, who has already been in excess of his/her obligation, gives up his/her right to his/her inherited property while consulting on division of inherited property, thereby having reduced the joint collateral for the general creditor, in principle, it constitutes a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da29119, Jul. 26, 2007; 2007Da73765, Mar. 13, 2008). The division of property falls short of the extent that the debtor’s specific share of inheritance.