1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. In March 2009, Hyundai Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “former Card”) entered into a credit card use contract with B, and B lost the benefit of time due to delinquency in payment of the card amount from September 2014.

As of October 28, 2014, the sum of credit card payment claims against Hyundai Card B is KRW 19,049,675.

B. On January 10, 2015, Hyundai Card transferred the credit card payment claim against B to the Plaintiff, and on January 13, 2015, notified the transfer of the credit to B.

C. Meanwhile, as of June 17, 2014, B entered into a gift agreement on the instant automobile (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”) with the Defendant who was his spouse at the time of June 17, 2014, and completed the transfer of ownership to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion B donated the automobile of this case to the defendant who is the spouse of this case under excess of his liability. This constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, who is the creditor of this case, and since it is presumed that the plaintiff's intention and the defendant's bad faith are presumed, the above donation contract should be revoked, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation of transfer registration of this case to B.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the gift contract of this case has the nature of the child support agreement, consolation money, and division of property for two children during the process of divorce between B and the Defendant. Therefore, it is not a fraudulent act.

In addition, at the time of the instant donation contract for the instant automobile, B was not insolvent.

3. Determination

A. In the divorce legal doctrine, division of property has been contributing to the maintenance of the other party’s livelihood at the same time after the divorce, but at the same time by the split-off’s act.