A. Indication of Claim: Attached Form 2. The title "the cause of the claim" is as the same.

(b) Judgment by publication service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. As to the claim against the defendant C

A. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 of the judgment on the cause of the claim (including various numbers for which the number is included) and the overall purport of the theory of change, each fact recorded as the cause of the claim No. 2 of the attached Table 2 may be recognized.

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s loan claim against Defendant B becomes a preserved claim for the revocation of the instant fraudulent act. On November 6, 2019, Defendant B entered into a mortgage agreement with Defendant C as to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on its own property (hereinafter “instant mortgage agreement”) and completed the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security listed in the Disposition B-B (hereinafter “registration of creation of collateral security”) under Defendant C’s name on the same day, it constitutes an act of deception. Defendant B was aware that the aforementioned act constituted an act of deception, thereby resulting in the lack of common creditors’ joint security (including the Plaintiff).

The defendant C's bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary in this case.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the instant mortgage contract should be cancelled as it constitutes an act of deception, and the Defendant C should implement the procedure for cancelling registration of creation of the instant mortgage to the Defendant B with the restoration to its original state.

B. The Defendant’s mother and Defendant B were aware of their claim, and at the request of her mother, the mother merely lent KRW 20 million to Defendant B in cash and received registration of the establishment of the instant right to collateral security, and did not know about Defendant B’s property. However, it is not sufficient to recognize the Defendant’s good faith solely on the evidence Nos. 1 and 2.