1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. As to the share of 2/11 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and C, it shall be as follows.

1. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: Fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap's evidence 1 through 5, and purport of the whole pleadings);

A. Plaintiff’s claim 1) On October 7, 2002, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 5,00,000 to C on October 7, 2002 at the rate of 10.5% applicable, interest rate of arrears 19%, and due date of October 7, 2003 (hereinafter “instant claim”).

(2) On September 22, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with C as Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2008Guj10911 on September 22, 2008, and received the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The payment order was finalized on November 22, 2008.

B. A consultation on the division of inherited property D (C and the father of the Defendant) died on July 23, 1980, and thereafter, C and the inheritors, including the Defendant, etc., agreed on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on the division of inherited property”) with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list, which is the deceased’s property (hereinafter “instant real estate”). Accordingly, on October 8, 2014, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of the instant agreement on the division of inherited property in the future of the Defendant.

2. The Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit filed on October 8, 2017, when the Plaintiff had known the cause of revocation around October 201, 2014, which was the time when the ownership transfer registration of the instant case was completed, was unlawful, deeming that the instant lawsuit filed on April 11, 2017 exceeded the exclusion period.

However, the burden of proof as to the lapse of the exclusion period is against the other party to a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act (Supreme Court Decision 2016Da272311 Decided April 10, 2018). It is reasonable to view that the plaintiff as the right to claim restitution due to revocation of a fraudulent act as the right to be preserved and that he/she was aware of the cause of revocation around August 1, 2016 of the application for prohibition of disposal of the real estate in this case, and there is no evidence to support that he/she knew of the cause of revocation around October 8, 2014, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits.