1. The mortgage contract concluded on February 24, 2015 with regard to the area of 210.3 square meters in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 6, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a drug sales contract with B and supplied the drugs to B. The Plaintiff’s obligation to pay for the goods that B failed to pay to the Plaintiff is KRW 4,241,852.

In addition, on December 3, 2013, B guaranteed the monetary obligation of KRW 248,046,815 against the Plaintiff.

B. On June 13, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B with the Seoul Western District Court seeking payment of the pharmaceutical purchase price, etc., and the above court rendered a favorable judgment against B, that “The Defendant (B) shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from April 12, 2014 to the date of full payment” (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2014Gahap2822), and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C. On February 24, 2015, B entered into a collective security agreement with the Defendant as to KRW 850,000,000 with respect to KRW 210,30,00 of the maximum amount of the right, which is one of the only real property of the Defendant, and completed the registration of the establishment of the collateral security agreement with the Defendant as the mortgagee on February 25, 2015.

At the time of the establishment of the above mortgage theory, 335,00,000 won was set up for the aggregate of maximum debt amount. The market price of the above real estate was 635,106,00 won around June 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, since B provided only one real estate to the defendant in excess of the obligation, the above mortgage contract concluded between B and the defendant is a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, who is another creditor, and is presumed to be the intention of the defendant.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was no intention of deception to the defendant at the time of concluding the mortgage contract.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is with merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.