1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. B, after entering into a credit card use contract with the Plaintiff on August 8, 2006, obtained a loan under the above contract on July 15, 2014 and February 9, 2015. As of December 4, 2015, B bears the Plaintiff a credit card use payment, a credit card loan ( principal of KRW 17,842,534 and overdue interest thereon) as of December 4, 2015.

B. On August 28, 2014, the Defendant and B, who had a couple, completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of one-half shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) on April 9, 2012. On September 30, 2015, B completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation as to one-half shares of the instant apartment among the instant apartment.

At the time of the registration of transfer of ownership of the apartment in this case, B was the only real estate.

C. On December 28, 2015, the Defendant completed a report of divorce by agreement with B.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2-6 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Even if the Defendant’s argument that the instant apartment shares were registered for transfer of ownership under the pretext of division of property while the agreement with B was married with B, it constitutes a fraudulent act in view of the fact that the instant apartment shares was the only property in excess of the debt at that time, and that it was the sole

3. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the division of property following divorce is a liquidation of common property formed through mutual cooperation between both parties during marriage, it has the nature of supporting the other party, and as a result, as a result of the reduction of joint security against general creditors by transferring a certain property to the spouse while the debtor in excess of debt is divorced and transferring a certain property to his/her spouse as a result, the division of property exceeds a considerable degree pursuant to the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act.