1. The transfer security register that was concluded on June 27, 2016 by the Defendant and B with respect to movables listed in the separate sheet.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The price of the goods that the Plaintiff had not received from January 2016 to B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) reaches KRW 36,371,664, and the outstanding amount of the bill received in B reaches KRW 41,800,000.

(The plaintiff was ordered to pay each of the above goods price and bill price as the Gwangju District Court 2018 tea605, 606. (B)

B, since 2016, the credit condition has deteriorated, and the credit status has become bad.

C. On June 27, 2016, the Defendant, the management director of B, drafted a notarial deed of a contract for debt repayment with security for transfer (No. 342, 2016, No. 342, a notary public’s C office), as to the movable property indicated in the attached Table B, the sole property of B as follows (hereinafter “instant movable property”).

- B approves the obligation of KRW 70 million to the Defendant under a monetary loan contract on June 27, 2016, and until June 30, 2017, B transferred the ownership of the movable property of this case owned by B to the Defendant by means of an alteration and alteration of possession for the purpose of securing the performance of the said obligation - If B fails to perform its obligation, the Defendant may immediately dispose of the movable property transferred for security in an appropriate manner and appropriate it for the repayment of the obligation with realization of the amount of the obligation (applicable for recognition). There is no dispute over the facts that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Where an obligor in excess of the obligation prepares and provides a notarial deed stating the purport of accepting compulsory execution with respect to the existing obligation for the purpose of having a specific obligee with respect to the existing obligation obtain repayment through compulsory execution procedures, the agreement between the obligee and the obligor, which caused the preparation of such notarial deed, constitutes a so-called repayment contract, which is a separate contract for the performance of the existing obligation, and constitutes a fraudulent act undermining the interests of other general creditors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da33884, Apr. 29, 2010). B, the only property of which is the instant case.