1. It was concluded on March 27, 2014 with respect to 2/7 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 5, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application against B for a payment order stating that “10,400,225 won for reimbursement and KRW 10,400,212 shall be paid with 17% per annum from October 30, 2009 to January 18, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (the Busan District Court Decision 2010 tea388, hereinafter “instant payment order”) and the payment order on February 2, 2010 became final and conclusive.

B. The father C (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on October 31, 2012, and his/her heir is the Defendant and his/her child, who is the spouse, B and D.

C. On March 27, 2014, the Defendant entered into an agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement”) under which the Defendant wishes to own each 2/7 equity share, which is the share of B, among the respective real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by B and the deceased, and completed the registration of share transfer on March 31, 2014.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, on April 13, 2007, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage at the debtor, the deceased, and Busan Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Bansan Bank”) on the real estate, and the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage at the Busan Bank, Inc. (hereinafter “Ban Bank”) was completed on December 8, 201, respectively, and on March 17, 201, the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage at the debtor, the deceased, and Busan Bank, the mortgagee, and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security was revoked on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On March 27, 2014, the Plaintiff’s assertion B entered into an agreement on division with the purport to waive his/her right to shares of 2/7 out of real estate, each of which was the only property owned by the Defendant, with the Defendant. This constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors of B including the Plaintiff, and thus ought to be revoked.

On the other hand, it is the first general creditor to order the restoration of 2/7 shares of each real estate in the way of restitution.