2. The defendant is the Incheon District Court regarding the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

A. The plaintiff is the defendant's father, and C is the plaintiff's husband.

B. On September 15, 2002, C and the Defendant purchased a building of 275,000,000 square meters for common funds in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D-212 square meters (hereinafter “D”) and its ground, and removed the building on the ground, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to each 1/2 portion of D land on October 15, 2002.

C. Around June 2003, D land was divided into a size of 106 square meters (hereinafter “F land”) and a size of 106 square meters (hereinafter “D land”) same as that of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “D land”).

C and the Defendant sold the D land and its ground buildings in KRW 200,000,000 and October 1, 2004 and the F land and its ground buildings in KRW 240,00,000, respectively.

On November 25, 2004, the Plaintiff and C purchased a building of 198 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G G, of H-28.5 square meters in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and its ground (hereinafter “G real estate”) in KRW 580,00,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to each of 1/2 shares on December 29, 2004.

On October 31, 2007, the Plaintiff and C sold G real estate in KRW 1,100,000,000.

E. On January 8, 2008, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate in KRW 560,000,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 12, 2008.

F. As to the instant real estate on March 12, 2008, the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case was completed on February 25, 2008, consisting of the debtor, the mortgagee, the defendant, the maximum debt amount of 200,000,000 won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, 6 to 8 evidence, Eul 1 to 8 evidence (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. (1) The creation of a mortgage of this case around the plaintiff (1) was set up by establishing a collateral security as the defendant is likely to be subject to compulsory execution from the creditor of C running a business to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff and the defendant are merely aimed at evading compulsory execution by the creditor of C without the secured debt.