1. On January 11, 2017, the respective 1/11 shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendants and E are concluded.

In fact, the Plaintiff has a monetary claim amounting to KRW 32,053,619 and to KRW 31.9% per annum from November 21, 2013 to the date of full payment.

Attached Form

Each real estate indicated in the list (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) was owned by the networkF. The networkF died on January 11, 2017, and the G, G, H, E, and the Defendants, who are spouse, succeeded to each real estate of this case.

The Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 28, 2017 with respect to 1/2 shares of each of the instant real estate on July 11, 2017, following the agreement on division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

E, at the time of the split-off consultation, did not have any particular active property except for shares 2/11 corresponding to the inheritance shares among each real estate of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] A’s assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings, and recognition prior to the occurrence of the right to revoke a fraudulent act, as stated in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1-10, the act of abandoning the inheritance share of each of the instant real estate, which is one of its sole property through the instant division consultation with the obligor in excess of debt, constitutes a fraudulent act as an act of causing or deepening the shortage of joint security against the general creditors including the plaintiff, and the Defendants’ bad faith, which is the obligor and the beneficiary, is presumed.

Therefore, the instant partition agreement concluded between E and the Defendants regarding each of the instant real estate portion of 1/11 ought to be revoked.

The defendants' assertion that the division agreement of this case was concluded according to the intention of the netF, so it does not constitute a fraudulent act, and the defendants not only claim as a bona fide beneficiary but also cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, the above assertion is without merit.

The method of restitution was registered to indicate ownership in the future, or ownership is owned by the law.