beta
Text
1. The Defendant and Nonparty B concluded on April 26, 201 with respect to 2/11 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion B received a credit card loan from Choung Bank and Samsung Card, and received a total of KRW 32,950,335,000. The Plaintiff finally transferred the said loan claim.
B A. On April 26, 2014, the Plaintiff died, and the heir was the Defendant (the heir 3/11 shares in inheritance), B, D, E, and F (the share in inheritance 2/11). On April 26, 2014, the Defendant, B, D, E, and F entered into an agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on the division of inherited property”) under which the Defendant would independently inherit each of the real property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real property”). Accordingly, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership on June 20, 2014.
At the time of the agreement on the division of the inherited property of this case, B was in excess of the debt, and the market value of 1/2 shares out of each of the real property of this case was 11,937,170 won, and the secured debt of the establishment of a mortgage on each of the above real property was fully repaid on September 26, 2008.
Therefore, in a situation where B and the Defendant entered into a contract for the division of the inherited property of this case with the Defendant in excess of the debt, and waiver of 2/11 of the share out of each of the above real property constitutes a fraudulent act. Since the registration of establishment of a neighboring real property after the commencement of the inheritance is revoked, it constitutes a case where the return of the original property is impossible or considerably difficult, the above agreement for the division of the inherited property shall be revoked within the limit of 11,937,170 won, which is the value of the above share, and the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the above 11,9
B. We examine the judgment, and since the defendant did not dispute the plaintiff's assertion in the pleading without submitting a written answer, it is deemed that the plaintiff's assertion was led to the confession in accordance with Article 150 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
Therefore, between the Defendant and B, 2/11 of each of the instant real estate.