1. The contract to establish a right to collateral security concluded on July 20, 2016 between the Defendant and B regarding the real estate stated in the attached list.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From around 2010 to October 31, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied private goods to B, but failed to receive KRW 51,315,000 out of the sales proceeds.

B. On July 20, 2016, the Defendant concluded a mortgage contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with a maximum debt amount of KRW 120 million as to the real estate indicated in B and the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of the instant real estate”) as stated in the Disposition B.

C. Meanwhile, at the time of entering into the instant contract, B owned the instant real estate equivalent to KRW 260 million at the market price as active property at the time of entering into the instant contract, and as small property, B was registered for provisional seizure of KRW 145,356,179, and KRW 50 million in total, tax liability, KRW 3259,290,290 in the amount of public water storage loan to the Plaintiff, KRW 4,691,240 in the amount of national health insurance, and KRW 203,305,70 in the amount of KRW 300,000 in the amount of the instant real estate. The provisional seizure registration was completed on March 16, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3 and 8 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the establishment of a fraudulent act, B deepens the status of excess by concluding the instant contract with the Defendant as to the instant real estate, which is one of its sole property in excess of the obligation, and thus, the said contract constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff, which is the creditor.

In addition, in light of the property relationship B at the time of the conclusion of the above contract, B recognized the fact that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to receive reimbursement of claims because the joint security in the situation of shortage due to the conclusion of the contract in this case is more deficient, and the defendant's bad faith is presumed.

In this regard, the defendant only entered into the contract of this case in order to secure a loan of KRW 100 million against B, and at that time.