1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows. The court's reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as follows: "No. 2015Gahap201392" of Part 3, No. 11 of the judgment of the first instance is as "Tgu District Court 2015Gahap201392", and No. 5, No. 7 through No. 9 of the judgment of the first instance is as follows: "No. 4 and No. 5 of the evidence" of this court, and the inquiry of Espool Lease Co., Ltd. of Espool, the court's inquiry of this court's Samsung Securities, Korean Bank, KB National Bank, and Daegu Bank's financial transaction information return results only submitted by the plaintiff." In addition to the determination of new claims made by the plaintiff by this court, it is accepted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Determination on a new claim

A. The Plaintiff’s cause of the Plaintiff’s claim is a creditor of D’s loan or damages against D, and the Plaintiff exercises the right to claim a division of property against D’s Defendant B by subrogation of insolvent D in order to preserve the above claim.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list to D.

B. 1) The right to claim a division of property between the parties to a divorce is merely an abstract right before its scope and contents are specified through consultation among them or a court’s judgment, etc. and thus cannot be the subject of a creditor’s subrogation right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da58016, Apr. 9, 199; 2013Da7936, Oct. 11, 2013). 2) In light of the relevant legal principles, the fact that a divorce between D and Defendant B was not disputed between the parties, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the scope and content of the right to claim a division of property was embodied by consultation between D and Defendant B or by a court’s judgment, etc.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above claim is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.