1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet

A. It was concluded on December 24, 2012 between the Defendant and C.

1. The summary of the case [based on the fact finding] The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D, C, and E for the claim for the amount of the transfer money from the court of this court against D, C, and E, etc. as a result of the fact inquiry about the following: "D, C, and E (C husband) shall jointly and severally pay the plaintiff 2,4140,000 won and D shall pay the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from September 2, 2007 to the day of full payment; and C, and E shall pay the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from July 2, 2007 to the day of full payment." This judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 15, 2012 with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). However, on the ground of the contract concluded as of December 24, 2012, C completed the registration of ownership transfer (the maximum amount of claims KRW 65 million) to the Defendant, who is the child of F, as the result of the contract concluded as of December 24, 2012.

At the time of the establishment of the foregoing right to collateral security, C was the sole property owned by C, and C was in excess of its obligation.

The plaintiff's assertion: The defendant set up a right to collateral security in order to secure his mother's claim against FF C and E, which does not constitute a fraudulent act, and himself is the good faith.

2. However, even if the husband of the C and her husband assumed certain debts to the Defendant’s mother;

Even if the Defendant, who is one of the creditors, established the right to collateral security of KRW 65 million with respect to the instant land in excess of the debt, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors including the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5710, Apr. 14, 2006). C is presumed to have been aware that the shortage of joint collateral was caused by the shortage of joint collateral, thereby undermining its creditors, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to have been committed by the beneficiary.

On the other hand, it is objective and objective to recognize that the beneficiary who has been provided with security was bona fide at the time of fraudulent act.