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

A. On July 25, 2012, the Plaintiff and Nonparty Company concluded a monetary loan agreement with the amount of KRW 200,000,000 per annum, interest rate of KRW 4.89 per annum, and damages for delay rate of KRW 12 per annum.

B. On April 9, 2015, the Defendant lost the benefit of the time limit for the loan obligations under the above contract. As of July 29, 2016, the Plaintiff has a claim for the loan of KRW 130,537,681 against the non-party company.

C. On the other hand, on February 16, 2015, the Defendant and the non-party company entered into a mortgage agreement with the maximum debt amount of KRW 408,00,000 regarding the instant real estate, which is the only property of the non-party company, and on the same day, the establishment registration was completed as to the instant real estate by the Jeonju District Court under Article 2843.

After that, the auction procedure was in progress with respect to the real estate in this case, and the real estate in this case was sold in KRW 756,780,000 in the above auction procedure, and the defendant received dividends in the dividend procedure in KRW 130,171,694.

【Ground for recognition】An absence of dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. As the non-party company concluded a mortgage agreement with the defendant and completed the registration thereof in excess of its obligation, the above mortgage agreement is a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, as it further deepens the status of excess of its obligation.

However, as long as the Defendant received dividends from the above auction procedure and the registration of the establishment of the mortgage was cancelled, it is impossible to return the original property due to the revocation of fraudulent act, so the Defendant is obliged to pay the amount equivalent to the above dividends with compensation for value

B. The Plaintiff seized the instant real estate on February 27, 2015, which was after the establishment registration of the foregoing neighboring mortgage. At least at least at the time of the above provisional seizure, the existence of the above contract to establish a collateral security and its piracy were known, and the Plaintiff filed one year after the provisional seizure.