1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. Nonparty B (C) and the Defendant were concluded on November 29, 2017.

Facts of recognition

On March 9, 2016, the plaintiff guaranteed the debt of KRW 330 million to the E bank in the Dispute Resolution D (Representative Director B). Accordingly, the non-party B guaranteed the debt of the plaintiff.

On August 16, 2018, the Plaintiff paid 297 billion won to the E Bank on behalf of the Plaintiff.

B On November 29, 2017, on the same day, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage contract with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant, which was based on the registration and receipt of the Busan District Court’s Dong Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch of Busan District Court (10 million won) and the registration of establishment of a mortgage of KRW 110 million with respect to the real estate listed in

B around November 2017, around 2017, held a total of KRW 220 million in the market price of the instant real estate and the Ftel G G of Busan Shipping Daegu.

[Ground] : Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings. However, it is required that in principle a claim which can be protected by the creditor's right of revocation of a fraudulent act has arisen prior to the occurrence of an act which could be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, there is a high probability that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been a legal relationship which serves as the basis of the establishment of the claim, and that in the near future, the claim should be established in accordance with such legal relationship. In the near future, where the probability is realized and the claim has been established in the near future, the creditor's right of revocation may also

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da68084, Jan. 13, 2011). According to the above facts, B, as the representative of the Dispute Settlement Bank D, knew that the occurrence of a guarantee accident caused by financial deterioration and that it would be responsible for the joint and several liability, and as such, the Plaintiff’s claim against B is ultimately a preserved claim for revocation of fraudulent act.