2. It was concluded on March 26, 2018 between the Defendant and C with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet.

2. As follows, the part to be tried shall not exceed 3 pages 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

A. “Fraud act” subject to the obligee’s right of revocation under Article 406 of the Civil Act is an act detrimental to the obligee by reducing active property or increasing the negative property, or by deepening that the obligor’s property is in excess of his/her obligation, and barring special circumstances, providing the obligor’s property to a certain obligee as payment in kind or as a security for another obligee is insufficient to fully satisfy the obligee’s obligation, barring any special circumstance, and thus, constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other obligees (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da18218, Jul. 12, 2007). The so-called obligee’s bad faith, namely, the obligor’s awareness that “the obligor would not prejudice the obligee’s obligation”, which is a subjective element of the obligee’s right of revocation, means the obligor’s perception that the obligor’s property is reduced by the obligor’s act of disposal in order to cause a shortage in the joint security of the claim or that the obligor’s

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da29916 delivered on November 12, 1999, etc.). B.

According to C’s evidence Nos. 8 and 9, each fact-finding inquiry about the Court Administration and Pyeongtaek-si in this Court, as a result of an order for submission of tax information about Ansan-si and the overall purport of oral argument, there are KRW 42,343,863, the value of the instant real estate as active property between C and the Defendant as of March 26, 2018, which was the date of the contract for the establishment of the instant mortgage right.