1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that: (a) the Plaintiff filed a claim for the purchase price of goods against Gwangju District Court 2016Gau1383, the High Military Court 2016Gau1383, which became final and conclusive around that time by winning a favorable judgment on January 25, 2017; and (b) the Plaintiff has a claim for the purchase price of goods equivalent to KRW 4,706

On the other hand, while a divorce between the Defendant and the Defendant, C completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 13, 2016 with respect to the instant real estate on the grounds of the instant property division agreement, which constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, and thus, C ought to revoke the instant property division agreement as a fraudulent act, and implement the procedure for cancelling the above transfer of ownership registration.

2. 1) Determination 1: (a) comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Nos. 3 and 4, the Plaintiff owned the claim for the purchase price of goods against C; (b) on May 10, 2016, C filed a divorce report with the Defendant on May 10, 2016; and (c) on May 13, 2016, the ownership transfer registration based on the instant property division agreement has been completed; (b) however, there is no evidence to support that the instant agreement for property division led to excess of the obligation or deepening the status of the obligation.

In addition, even if a debtor who has already been in excess of his/her obligation transfers a certain property to his/her spouse as a result of the division of property and reduces the joint security against the general creditor, barring any special circumstance to recognize that the above division of property is excessive beyond a considerable degree pursuant to the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act, it shall not be subject to revocation by the creditor as a fraudulent act, unless there

However, since excess portion beyond the above considerable degree cannot be seen as a legitimate division of property, it can be subject to revocation, and it goes beyond the above considerable degree.