1. Defendant A, B, C, and D are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 20,134,876 and KRW 19,449,78 among them.

1. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant A, B, C, and D

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

B. (1) The grounds for appeal (1) Defendant C: there is no dispute as to the facts stated in the grounds for appeal in the attached Form between Defendant A, B, D, and the said Defendants, in the judgment of deemed confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act).

C. Accordingly, Defendant A, B, C, and D are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the money set forth in Paragraph 1 of the Disposition.

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant E

A. The gist of the assertion is that the Plaintiff, a creditor against Defendant D, asserted that the establishment of the right to collateral security was a fraudulent act on June 5, 2012, which was concluded between Defendant D and Defendant E with respect to the instant real estate, and sought implementation of the procedure for cancellation of registration of establishment of the right to collateral security stated in the purport of the claim due to cancellation of the said

B. We examine whether Defendant D’s establishment of a collateral security to Defendant E with respect to the instant real estate constitutes a fraudulent act.

In the case of a real estate on which a mortgage is established, only the balance obtained by deducting the secured claim amount from the value of the real estate, may be offered to the joint collateral of the general creditors, and a fraudulent act may be established. Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, the market price of the real estate in this case at the time of the above mortgage contract is limited to KRW 192,00,000,000, and the priority mortgage was established over the F’s maximum debt amount of KRW 208,000,000 in the real estate in this case, but the above amount was small property of Defendant D.

Therefore, since the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the instant real estate exceeds the value of the instant real estate, Defendant D cannot be deemed a fraudulent act to establish the right to collateral security against the instant real estate.

3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant A, B, C, and D is accepted for reasonable grounds, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant E.