1. The contract to establish a right to collateral security concluded on February 11, 2014 between the Defendant and C regarding the real estate stated in the attached list.

1. Fact-finding;

A. The Plaintiff has a claim equivalent to C’s “379,649,600 won and damages for delay,” according to the final and conclusive judgment of Daejeon District Court 2013Gahap42766.

B. On February 11, 2014, prior to the day when the above judgment became final and conclusive, C completed the establishment registration of the mortgage of this case, which was 260,000,000 won, on the ground of the agreement to establish the mortgage of this case on the real property recorded in the attached list to the Defendant, who is the husband.

C. At the time of the instant mortgage contract, C did not have any property other than the real estate indicated in the attached list.

In the case of compulsory auction of real estate D in Cheongju District Court, the above court distributed KRW 66,077,942 to the defendant, who is a collateral security, who is a right to collateral security on September 2, 2014, and prepared the distribution schedule of this case that does not distribute to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection to the total amount of dividends against the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 5 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Even if the defendant's assertion that he was actually holding a loan claim against the wife C, the conclusion of the mortgage contract of this case with the defendant among the creditors regarding real estate stated in the separate sheet that C is its sole property constitutes a fraudulent act which causes a situation in which C's property of liability is reduced in relation to the plaintiff, who is another creditor, and thus, it could not be repaid to the plaintiff.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da47301 Decided February 23, 2007). Therefore, the instant mortgage contract ought to be revoked as a fraudulent act, and it is reasonable to revise the instant distribution schedule by striking the amount of dividends to the Defendant and distributing the said amount to the Plaintiff through restitution to the original state.