1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the following portions of cancellation and payment order.

1. The reasons for this part of the facts of recognition are as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except that the reasoning for this part of the judgment of the first instance is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is as stated in Paragraph 1, with the exception that the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is as stated in Paragraph 1, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(g) On February 6, 201, the details of deposit for lease with preferential right to payment on each of the instant real estate at the time of the split-off consultation of the instant inherited property are as listed below. The Housing Lease Protection Act (a final date) shall be comprised of the total deposit for lease with equal right to payment on each of the instant real estate, and KRW 20,000,000 above and above 20,000,000 above and above 20,000 won under the Housing Lease Protection Act (a small lessee) 8,00,000,000 won on one story 48,000,000,000,000 won for 68,000,000,0000 won for 68,000,0000,0000 won for 20,20000,0000 won.

2. The reasoning for the judgment on the Defendants’ defense prior to the merits is as stated in Paragraph 2 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the reasoning for this part is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s claim of KRW 125,092,250 against C was established prior to the agreement on division of the inherited property of this case. Thus, the agreement on division of the inherited property of this case is a preserved claim to revoke the agreement on division of the inherited property of this case. 2) Since the agreement on division of the inherited property of this case is a juristic act aimed at property rights in its nature, it may be subject to the exercise of the right to revoke the right to revocation of the fraudulent act. Furthermore, even in cases where the obligor in excess of the debt already renounced his/her right to share of inherited property upon the agreement on division of the inherited property and the joint security against the general creditor has decreased, it constitutes a fraudulent

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29119, Jul. 26, 2007). As to the instant case, C in excess of the obligation refers to this case.