1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

. Recognizing that a loan of KRW 20 million has been transferred to D out of KRW 87 million;

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to see that C transferred the same amount of KRW 87 million to D, a creditor of B, to make a special profit.

Therefore, even if the Defendant did not consider the Defendant’s contributory portion, comprehensively taking account of the written evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, 9, and 27, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant real estate was completed on September 29, 2010 by the registration of creation of a mortgage consisting of the debtor C, the mortgagee of the collective security interest, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 156 million, which is KRW 100,000,000,000, the Defendant sold to G, on December 13, 2010, the amount of KRW 2,797 square meters, and KRW 2,706,00,00 to the account of C on December 17, 2010, G transferred KRW 101,525,000 from C’s account to repay loans, and the registration of establishment of a mortgage was revoked on the same day.

As such, the fact that the Defendant sold the land owned by the Defendant and repaid the land in lieu of C’s loans is a circumstance to recognize the contributory portion in a case where the Defendant particularly contributed to the maintenance or increase of C’s property.

B’s specific shares of inheritance in B is 1/6 of the amount calculated by adding the above special proceeds to the value of the instant real estate, and 44,741,066 won [181,446,400 won (87 million won)]* 1/6, and less than KRW 1/6]. The amount of special proceeds in B’s portion of inheritance exceeds the above specific shares of inheritance is obvious in calculation.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the agreement on the division of the inherited property of this case was less than that of B’s specific share of inheritance.

C. Ultimately, the agreement on division of the inherited property in this case is difficult to acknowledge the excess of B’s debt, and the result of division is less than B’s specific share of inheritance, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the agreement on division of inherited property of this case is a fraudulent act is groundless, and it is dismissed as per Disposition.