1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6:

On May 26, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with B on May 26, 201, issued a credit guarantee statement with the guaranteed principal amount of KRW 30,000,000, and the term of guarantee as of May 26, 2016, and provided a credit guarantee as to the principal and interest of a loan to be paid by B upon borrowing KRW 30 million from a new bank.

B. After that, around January 14, 2014, B lost the benefit of time due to delinquency in paying the principal and interest of a new bank, and accordingly, the credit guarantee accident occurred.

C. Therefore, the Plaintiff paid the principal and interest of loan to the new bank on behalf of the new bank on behalf of B, and the Plaintiff has 19,020,454 won as to B, and the amount of interest and interest on subrogation equivalent to interest on delay.

B, on November 5, 2013, with the Defendant having his own wife, donated the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as the only real estate owned by the Defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day, and B and the Defendant divorced upon confirmation of divorce with the Seoul Family Court on February 14, 2014.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment as to the plaintiff

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The act of making a donation of the real estate of this case to the defendant by false conspiracy B is null and void as a false conspiracy between the spouse with the intent to evade the plaintiff's obligation without receiving any actual price. 2) Even if the act of donation was based on the actual transaction relationship, it inevitably causes a decrease in B's general property because B disposes of the real estate of this case, which is the only property of the plaintiff, to the other party, and therefore, it is apparent that the joint security of the claim is insufficient. Ultimately, the plaintiff as the plaintiff is against B.