1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had a loan claim against D by lending money to D from 1995 to 2013.

D, on July 14, 201, concluded a mortgage agreement with Defendant C on each of the following items: (a) on October 17, 201, the registration of establishment of a mortgage was completed on each of the following items: (b) on October 17, 201, the registration of establishment of a mortgage was completed on each of the above items; (c) on June 5, 2012, the Defendant B entered into a mortgage agreement with Defendant B on each of the items of (i) 1, (ii) and (iii) as indicated in the attached Table 1 list; and (d) on July 20, 2012, Defendant B completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on each of the above items under Article 24972.

D Each contract to establish a mortgage between D and the Defendants is invalid as it is based on a false declaration of conspiracy, or is deemed to constitute a fraudulent act concluded with intent to impair D’s property belonging to the scope of security of general creditors. The Plaintiff seeks to cancel each contract to establish a mortgage between D and the Defendants by the instant lawsuit and implement the registration procedure for cancellation of each registration of establishment of a mortgage completed in the name of the Defendants on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1, 2, and 3 as stated in the separate sheet.

2. The Defendants asserted that there is no preserved claim against the Defendants, which serves as the basis for seeking revocation of fraudulent act and restitution of the original state, since the Plaintiff’s loans against D were fully extinguished due to repayment.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 29 (including serial numbers), prior defenses by the Defendants cannot be justified, since it can be confirmed that the Plaintiff’s loan claims against Eul exist as of the date of the closing of argument in this case.

① The Plaintiff is a vice-committee of the Incheon District Court with respect to D.