The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. From this Court’s wage case 2017 Ghana55, the Plaintiff filed against D, on December 14, 2018, sentenced that “Defendant (D) shall pay to the Plaintiff 15,60,000 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from July 25, 2017 to October 16, 2018, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The above judgment was finalized on January 5, 2019.

(B) The Plaintiff’s claim against D pursuant to the above judgment (hereinafter referred to as “instant claim”).

On December 4, 2018, the Defendant entered into a mortgage agreement with D on the maximum debt amount of KRW 48,00,000,000, debtor D, and the debtor as the defendant (hereinafter “instant mortgage agreement”) with regard to 24,595 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) of the land owned by D, Daegu District Court No. 26915, Dec. 4, 2018, and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “the instant mortgage registration”) in the future of the Defendant as of the Daegu District Court No. 26915, Dec. 4, 2018.

C. At the time of entering into the instant mortgage contract, D owned the instant land equivalent to KRW 40,827,700 as active property at the time of entering into the instant mortgage contract, and as passive property, D bears the Plaintiff’s obligation of KRW 2,084,00 in addition to the Plaintiff’s obligation arising from the instant claim, the amount of KRW 2,197,00 in total with respect to the E company, the amount of KRW 2,197,00 in addition to the obligation arising from the instant claim, and the amount of KRW 1,90,00 in total with respect to the G company.

[Ground for recognition] A without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1-2 (including each number, hereinafter the same) and fact-finding with respect to the Seo-gu of Daegu Metropolitan City in this Court, the result of this Court's order to submit financial transaction information to H institutions in this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the mortgage contract of this case is a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, who is the creditor of D.

For this, the defendant needs to continue the business of D.