1. The plaintiff's successor's claim is dismissed.

2. Of the litigation costs, the part arising between the plaintiff (ex officio) and the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 28, 2008, the Plaintiff (Withdrawal) received an order to pay C 13,698,105 won and 7,383,912 won with interest rate of 17% per annum from March 17, 2008 to the date of full payment.”

(Seoul Southern District Court 2008J229). The principal and interest of the above bonds are KRW 25,661,311 as of October 24, 2017.

B. Defendant C, D, E, and F are heirs of G who died on May 16, 2016.

On July 4, 2016, the above inheritors agreed on the division of inherited property that they will own the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 of the certificate No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as owned by the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant agreement on division of inherited property.” On July 7, 2016, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of inheritance by consultation and division on May 16, 2016.

C. On January 26, 2018, the Plaintiff’s successor intervenor against the Plaintiff (Withdrawal) C

On May 3, 2018, upon delegation by the plaintiff (ex officio), notified the assignment of claims to C.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 5 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s assertion is that the instant real estate portion (1/5) is the only property C, and thus, the agreement on the division of the instant inherited property is a fraudulent act.

The defendant shall implement C with regard to the shares in the real estate of this case 1/5 as the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration.

B. 1) The facts acknowledged earlier, the results of the inquiry and reply to the Court Administration of this Court, the results of the submission to H agency, the results of the submission to the H agency, and the overall purport of the argument with respect to the company I.C. at the time of the division of the inherited property of this case

1.(a)

It is true that the instant real estate owned by the Defendant was owned by other inheritors, even though it was assumed the same obligation as the stated in the subsection, and that the instant real estate was owned by the Defendant.