1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange are all dismissed.

2. Appeal;

1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's explanation of this case is acceptable by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In particular, the Plaintiff asserts that the divorce lawsuit between the Defendant and C was filed with a view to obstructing the execution of the Plaintiff’s claim, and that it was subject to revocation of creditor’s property division exceeding considerable extent. However, this is identical to the allegations in the first instance trial, and even if both the evidence and circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff (such as the body and form of documents submitted during the divorce lawsuit procedure, the content thereof, the division ratio of property division, etc.) are examined, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim that the court changed exchangedly in this court are all dismissed as it is without merit (the plaintiff's claim seeking the return of originals of the court of first instance was withdrawn by the exchange change of the lawsuit made in this court and the judgment of the court of first instance was invalidated) and it is so decided as per Disposition