2. Claim against the defendant B

A. On February 5, 2018, the conclusion of the contract of donation with Defendant A, a spouse, on the instant real estate on February 5, 2018 by Defendant A, who bears the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement and substitute payment, is a fraudulent act and thus ought to be revoked.

B. In light of the fact that the division of property following the divorce is a liquidation of the common property formed through mutual cooperation between the parties during the marriage, it is not necessary to revoke the division of property as a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstance where it is deemed that the division of property exceeds a considerable degree pursuant to the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act, barring any special circumstance to recognize that the division of property exceeds a reasonable degree pursuant to the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act.

However, since it cannot be deemed a legitimate division of property for any portion exceeding a considerable degree, it can be subject to revocation because it constitutes a fraudulent act. However, even in this case, the scope of revocation should be limited to the portion exceeding a considerable degree, and there are special circumstances to deem that it is excessive division of property beyond a considerable degree, the obligee bears the burden of proving that it is an obligee.

In light of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant’s donation of the instant real estate to Defendant B to the Defendant is deemed as a division of property following a divorce, and there are special circumstances to deem that the donation of the instant real estate was excessive division of property beyond a considerable degree.