1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. B on May 8, 2007, at 11.77% interest rateing to KRW 26 million from the Korea Standards Bank, Inc., Ltd., and at 25% interest interest rateing to KRW B (hereinafter “instant loan claim”) received a loan (hereinafter “instant loan claim”).

After March 31, 2012, Korea Standards Bank Co., Ltd. transferred the instant loan claims to the Plaintiff, and notified the assignment of the said claims to B on May 3, 2012, and served to B around that time.

B. At the time of October 12, 2010, B entered into the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”) on the ground of donation on the same day (hereinafter “instant donation contract”) with respect to the Defendant who was the spouse of Suwon-si C Apartment No. 109 and 1106 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

C. The Defendant and B reported a marriage on January 7, 1997, but did not divorce on August 30, 201.

As of March 12, 2015, the loan claim of this case as of March 12, 2015 is KRW 5,464,153 (=principal interest of KRW 3,033,330,820).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. In light of the fact that Plaintiff B’s act of donation of the instant real estate, the sole property of which is the Plaintiff’s spouse, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, which is a general creditor, and the divorce has been made after ten months have elapsed since the instant donation contract, it cannot be deemed that the instant real estate was donated through division of property. 2) Even if the instant donation contract was concluded through division of property following the divorce between Plaintiff B and the Defendant, such division of property is excessive beyond a considerable degree. As such, the instant donation contract constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, should be revoked within the scope of KRW 5,464,153, which is equivalent to the Plaintiff’s preserved claim amount.