1. The plaintiff (Appointed)'s claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. The assertion and judgment

A. On June 26, 2015, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointor Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) filed a lawsuit claiming acquisition of the stone industry against Nonparty E, etc. and was sentenced to the judgment (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2015Gahap2775; hereinafter “instant related judgment”) on October 6, 2016, that “Nonindicted E, etc. jointly and severally filed a lawsuit claiming acquisition of the stone amounting to KRW 77,240,579 and delay damages against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party); and the Appointor C paid KRW 308,496,00 and delay damages to the building industry corporation (hereinafter “instant related judgment”).

On October 7, 2016, Nonparty E was served with the aforementioned judgment. On October 11, 2016, Nonparty E concluded a mortgage contract with Nonparty E, a mortgagee A, the maximum debt amount of which is KRW 330,000,00 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet as indicated in paragraphs (1) through (6) as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 as follows: on October 12, 2016, Nonparty E concluded a mortgage contract with the Defendants on each real estate indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 as indicated in the separate sheet No. 2 as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 as follows; and on October 12, 2016, Nonparty E concluded a mortgage contract with respect to each real estate owned by himself/herself (hereinafter “instant mortgage contract”).

Although Nonparty E, in collusion with the Defendants, concluded a mortgage contract of this case for the purpose of evading compulsory execution by the Plaintiff, etc., and completed the establishment registration of a mortgage. Thus, the mortgage contract of this case should be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act, and each establishment registration of a mortgage of this case completed by the Defendants should be revoked.

B. We examine whether there is a claim against the non-party E based on the judgment of this case, i.e., the preserved claim claimed by the plaintiff (appointed party), and according to the overall purport of the statement and pleading of evidence No. 2, the relevant judgment of this case.