1. Each of the real estates entered in the separate sheet between the defendant and the non-party B, signed on December 13, 2009.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 26, 2007, the Plaintiff leased KRW 2 billion to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) on July 26, 2008, with the due date set on July 26, 2008. At the time, the Plaintiff, a registered director of the Nonparty Company, was jointly and severally guaranteed up to KRW 2.6 billion.

(hereinafter referred to as “joint and several surety claim of this case”). (b)

At the time, the non-party company had a loan obligation of approximately KRW 7.8 billion including the above loan obligation, and the above loan obligation was not repaid by the due date, and the interest was in arrears.

C. Upon the Plaintiff’s request, Daejeon District Court Decision 2013 tea1061, “B would pay KRW 2.6 billion to the Plaintiff jointly and severally with the Nonparty Company” was issued a payment order, and the said payment order was finalized on January 4, 2014.

B concluded a mortgage contract with the Defendant on December 13, 2009 (hereinafter “mortgage contract”). Accordingly, on December 16, 2009, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the Suwon District Court, the Sungsung District Court, No. 220796 on December 16, 2009, with regard to each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

E. B was insolvent at the time of entering into the instant mortgage contract. B and the Defendant are related to the private relationship.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), appraiser D's appraisal result, the order of taxation information provision to the South-North Jeju market by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of the recognition of the existence of the preserved claim, joint and several guarantee claim of this case can be recognized as a preserved claim in order to cancel the mortgage contract of this case as a fraudulent act.

B. In light of the above facts as to the establishment of the fraudulent act, B is in excess of the obligation.