1. As to the portion of 1/2 of the Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu 142.1 square meters,

A. On March 16, 1995, between the defendant and the deceased C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 10, 200, the Plaintiff’s claim against C (1) entered into a credit card use contract with Choung Bank. On October 31, 2003, C’s credit card use payment obligation against Choung Bank was KRW 3,591,928 in total.

(2) On October 31, 2003, the Daiung Bank transferred the credit card payment claim against C (hereinafter “instant claim”) to the promotional mutual savings bank, and the promotional mutual savings bank transferred the instant claim to the Plaintiff on June 15, 201.

B. (1) A, the father of C, etc. (hereinafter “the deceased”), died on March 16, 1995. As co-inheritors of the deceased, C, the deceased’s children, and the Defendant, as co-inheritors, agreed on the division of inherited property on the part of the Defendant, with the content that the Defendant shall solely inherit the property (hereinafter “the instant real property”). Accordingly, on February 22, 2012, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 16, 1995 with respect to the instant real property as a result of inheritance by agreement division.

(2) Meanwhile, upon the death of April 8, 2013, C inherited C’s property independently.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The agreement on the division of the inherited property established by a fraudulent act is to confirm the ownership of the inherited property by either having all or part of the inherited property owned by each inheritor separately or by performing it as a new co-ownership relationship with respect to the inherited property provisionally owned by co-inheritors upon the commencement of inheritance, and therefore, it is a juristic act the object of which is property right by its nature. Thus, it

(Supreme Court Decision 200Da51797 delivered on February 9, 2001). We examine the instant claim against C, which the Plaintiff had against C, becomes a preserved claim against the revocation of the fraudulent act, and the instant claim exceeds C’s obligation.