The judgment of the first instance is revoked.

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

All costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

the purport and purpose of the claim;

1. The plaintiff asserted that "D shall pay to the plaintiff 28,261,619 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from July 14, 2005 to the date of complete repayment" filed a lawsuit claiming the return of the lease deposit with the Suwon District Court 2005Ga, which was 44059, and on June 20, 2006, the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 22, 2006.

In around 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Suwon District Court Decision 2016Ga 517508, which sought the payment of the lease deposit under the above judgment, and was sentenced to the same judgment on March 28, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 14, 2017.

Therefore, the Plaintiff has a claim equivalent to the interest rate of 20% per annum from July 14, 2005 to the date of full payment with respect to D, as well as KRW 28,261,619.

The mother of Han Part D (hereinafter referred to as “the Deceased”) died on July 1, 2014, and was in excess of his/her obligation.

D around August 29, 2014, between H and the Defendant, a joint heir, consulted on the division of inherited property by the Defendant solely inherited between the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) that is the deceased’s inherited property. On September 2, 2014, the ownership of the instant real estate in the Defendant’s name was terminated due to the division by consultation on September 1, 2014.

Since the agreement on division of the above inherited property constitutes an intentional act and the defendant is a malicious beneficiary, the agreement on division of the above inherited property shall be revoked within the limit of the share of inheritance D, and the recovery shall be conducted accordingly.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. On July 7, 2016, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff was determined to dispose of the real estate disposition price, where the right to claim the registration of transfer of ownership based on the claim for revocation of fraudulent act was the right to preserve the real estate.

Therefore, the Plaintiff knew that around that time the agreement on division of the above inherited property constitutes a fraudulent act.

As such, one year thereafter.