A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's act of causing shortage of security by offering each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "each of the real estate in this case") as security to the creditor in excess of his/her obligation constitutes a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstance, it is acknowledged that the debtor's intent is recognized, and the beneficiary's bad faith is recognized in light of the fact that the registration of establishment of mortgage was completed more than four months after the date of the contract, as well as that the defendant A's bad faith is recognized. Thus, the defendant A and the debtor company should cancel the contract on each of the real estate in this case as of November 6, 2014, since it is highly probable that the claim against the corporation C (hereinafter "debtor") was not established at the time of establishing the right to collateral security.

Defendant A requires high probability that a claim for the preservation of a fraudulent act should have been established at the time of the fraudulent act, as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff, at the time of the fraudulent act. However, the preserved claim asserted by the Plaintiff was not established at the time of the conclusion of the mortgage agreement that was alleged as a fraudulent act, or was highly probable, and thus, cannot be deemed a preserved claim for the fraudulent act. There is no evidence to prove that the debtor company actively engages in business activities at the time of the conclusion of the mortgage agreement and that there was no deterioration of the financial status or poorness, and ③ is provided as a security by lending KRW 100 million to the debtor company.