1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 24, 2016, the Plaintiff received a provisional attachment order with regard to the real estate listed in the attached list D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the lower court as a preserved right by setting the loan claims of KRW 150,830,743 against D as a preserved right, and the provisional attachment was registered on the same day.

B. D, May 16, 2016, concluded a contract to establish a mortgage of KRW 25 million with the Defendant as to the instant real estate, and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on May 17, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). C.

Meanwhile, on June 7, 2012, the Plaintiff’s registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (the maximum amount of 68,400,000 won) was completed, but the Plaintiff applied for the auction of real estate E based on the aforementioned collateral security.

On April 25, 2017, the above court prepared a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 68,400,000 to the Plaintiff, who is the applicant creditor, among the amount of KRW 83,789,09,094 to be actually distributed on the date of distribution, and the Defendant, who is the applicant creditor, each of KRW 15,389,094 (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff reported KRW 101,037,680 as a provisional seizure creditor at the above auction procedure, but failed to receive dividends.

The Plaintiff’s agent F appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection against the whole amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on April 27, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that it is unfair to pay dividends to the defendant since it constitutes a fraudulent act to set up the instant collateral security to the defendant who was in excess of debt D.

The defendant did not constitute a fraudulent act since D was not in excess of the debt at the time of the establishment of the right to collateral security of this case, and even if so, it constitutes a fraudulent act.

Even if the defendant actually lends D KRW 20 million to D, the defendant in this case.