1. Defendant A and Defendant B jointly and severally committed against the Plaintiff KRW 191,69,297 and KRW 191,69,165 among them.

1. The fact that there is no dispute over the following facts: (a) Defendant C entered into a mortgage agreement with Defendant C on June 19, 2012 with regard to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”); and (b) completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage under Defendant C’s name as the receipt of the Changwon District Court No. 40476 on the same day; and (c) there is no dispute between the parties.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts finding as to the claim for indemnity, Defendant A and B are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 191,69,165 won for indemnity, 191,69,297 won for indemnity, and 191,69,165 won for double 191,69,69,165 won for indemnity, which is the sum of 191,69,165 won for indemnity, and 191,69,165 won for indemnity, from August 21, 2012, the date of subrogation, until the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case (Defendant A, October 23, 2012; Defendant B, September 18, 2012) until the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, 14% per annum for delay interest, and 20% per annum

B. (1) Determination of a claim for revocation of a fraudulent act shall be based on the fact that the joint and several sureties knew that his/her property status falls short of securing the obligation of joint and several sureties for the creditor. It should be determined by the fact that the joint and several sureties knew that the joint and several sureties would fall short of securing the obligation of joint and several sureties for the creditor. It should not be deemed that the joint and several sureties knew that his/her property status of the principal debtor would fall short of securing the obligation of the principal debtor. However, it

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da54420, Apr. 14, 1998). Also, barring any special circumstance, an act of providing real estate, which is the only property of a debtor, to some of the creditors, is a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, and furthermore, a beneficiary of a fraudulent act and a subsequent purchaser, barring any special circumstance.