1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is all dismissed.

3...

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the division of property in this case constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, claims revocation and reinstatement.

2. If a creditor intends to exercise the right of revocation of a lawsuit against a defendant B, he/she shall not file a lawsuit against a debtor, against a person who has received any benefit by a fraudulent act or against a person who acquired such benefit, claiming the revocation of the juristic act.

(1) The Supreme Court Decision 2004Da21923 Decided August 30, 2004 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da21923, Aug. 30, 200).

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. Division of property following the divorce is a system that has the economic difficulty of supporting the other party, which is the liquidation of the joint property achieved through mutual cooperation between the other party during the marriage. Even though the debtor who has already been in excess of his/her debt, while divorced and transfers a certain property to his/her spouse, thereby reducing joint security against the general creditor, barring any special circumstance, such division of property is not subject to revocation by the creditor as a fraudulent act, unless it is deemed that the division of property is excessive beyond a considerable degree pursuant to the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act. However, it is not subject to revocation by the creditor, and it is not subject to legitimate division of property beyond a considerable degree. However, the creditor bears the burden of proving that there are special circumstances that it is excessive division of property beyond a considerable degree.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da14101 Decided July 28, 2000, Supreme Court Decision 2006Da33258 Decided September 14, 2006, etc.) B.

The following facts may be recognized in full view of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence 1-11 and Eul evidence 1-6 (including paper numbers) and the overall purport of the pleadings.

1. The Defendants reported their marriage on February 29, 1984.