1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In the event of a preserved claim, the Plaintiff was subject to a favorable judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37965, Supreme Court Decision 2018Da52713, Supreme Court Decision 2018Da29685, Supreme Court Decision 2018Da29685, Decided October 18, 2017) that “The Plaintiff’s gift contract between Nonparty E and D was revoked as a fraudulent act. D was paid to the Plaintiff for KRW 80,574,500 and delay damages.”

B. The real estate indicated in the separate list for the registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s name (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was originally registered under D’s name, but the same month was based on the donation on November 6, 2017 (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”).

7. The registration of ownership transfer has been completed in the name of the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2, and the whole purport of pleading

2. The plaintiff asserts that the gift of this case, which is the only property D, is a fraudulent act, on the other hand, the defendant asserts that the gift of this case does not constitute a fraudulent act, since the real estate of this case was transferred to the defendant as a division of property following divorce.

3. Determination

A. Division of property according to divorce by relevant legal doctrine is a system that has the economic difficulty to support the other party, which is the liquidation of joint property achieved through mutual cooperation between the other party during marriage. Even if a debtor who has already been in excess of his/her obligation, while divorced and transfers a certain property to his/her spouse, thereby reducing joint security against the general creditor, such division of property is not subject to revocation by a creditor as a fraudulent act, unless there are special circumstances to deem that such division of property is excessive beyond a considerable degree pursuant to the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act, but is legitimate division of property only for the portion exceeding a considerable degree.