1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 8, 2013, the Plaintiff rendered a credit card loan (credit card loan) to B, and as of December 9, 2014, the Plaintiff has a credit card payment claim against B as follows.

(units: 3,082, 312, 336, 602, 14, 4422, 202, 3106 5,152, 398-6, 808-6, 808, 872,262, total sum of principal interest, overdue interest, overdue interest, and 3,08

B. On January 13, 2014, B transferred the registration of ownership transfer on the instant housing to the Defendant, one’s own birth, for sale as of January 10, 2014.

(hereinafter “Disposal of the instant housing”). C.

On October 14, 2014, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of 86,90,000,000 won against the debtor to our bank with respect to the instant house, and on the same day, the existing registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the nearest area (86,40,000 won, the maximum debt amount of the mortgage amount of 86,90,000 won, the debtor B, and the mortgagee Co., Ltd.) was cancelled.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3, 10 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The act of disposing of the instant house asserted by the Plaintiff is a fraudulent act causing the shortage or loss of joint collateral against the Plaintiff and other creditors, and thus, the ownership of the instant house cannot be restored to its original state due to the creation of a new collateral security after the fraudulent act. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s claim amount against B as compensation for value.

B. The Defendant alleged that the instant housing was not in excess of the debt at the time of the disposal of the instant housing, and thus, the disposal of the instant housing does not constitute a fraudulent act.

The defendant was transferred the ownership of the house in this case due to the payment in lieu of the loan claim against B, and there was no perception that the plaintiff et al. will prejudice the creditor.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, at the time of disposing of the instant housing.