1. The right to collateral security entered into on March 13, 2014 with respect to one-third share of 1/3 of the 2,840 square meters in Sungsung-si D, the Defendant and C.

1. Basic facts

A. From July 2008, the Plaintiff left the custody of KRW 1 billion to C, and received a refund of the said money from C around June 2010.

C arbitrarily used the above money, and upon the Plaintiff’s request for the return of the said KRW 1 billion, C newly prepared a monetary loan agreement with respect to KRW 1 billion on June 8, 2011 ( principal KRW 1 billion, maturity period, KRW 31 December 31, 201, interest rate of KRW 12% per annum), and as a result, a notary public drafted a notarial deed with respect to compulsory execution recognition and recognition of Asian law firm No. 322 on December 32, 2011.

B. On November 23, 2011, C concluded a mortgage contract with a maximum debt amount of KRW 150 million with respect to the real estate as indicated in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as one’s relative E and the real estate indicated in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

Accordingly, on October 19, 2012, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming that the aforementioned mortgage contract was a fraudulent act, and won the lawsuit claiming the revocation of a fraudulent act and restitution of the original state (U.S. District Court 2012 Gohap10402), and the judgment was finally affirmed.

C. On March 13, 2014, C entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant regarding the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant mortgage agreement”) and on the same day, C concluded a mortgage agreement with the obligor C, the maximum debt amount, KRW 75 million, and the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the same day.

C was in excess of the obligation at the time of establishing the instant mortgage.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Gap 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. As seen earlier, at the time of establishing the right to collateral security of this case, the Plaintiff had a monetary payment claim of KRW 1 billion against C.

B. The act of providing real estate, the sole property of the debtor, which is the debtor's property, to a person who is one of the creditors, as a claim security, which has already been affected by the establishment of a fraudulent act and intent to cause damage to the creditor, as a collateral,