1. The deed of notary public C office No. 105, January 18, 2016 between the Defendant and B was concluded on the basis of a notarized deed No. 105, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 20, 2003, the judgment of Daejeon District Court that "B shall pay to the Plaintiff 40,000,000 won with 21% interest per annum from October 1, 2002 to the date of full payment," which states that "B shall pay to the Plaintiff 832,061,754 won and its 400,000,000 won among them," which became final and conclusive on September 18, 2003 (Seoul District Court 2003Gahap328).

B. On January 18, 2016, between the Defendant and the Defendant on January 18, 2016, a notary public C office’s notarial deed (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) stating that “B borrowed KRW 500 million from the Defendant on April 22, 2015 at the maturity of payment on December 30, 2015, interest rate of KRW 5% per annum, and delay damages, respectively, at 25% per annum.” Based on the instant notarial deed, the Defendant, on January 29, 2016, issued a collection order for the claim attachment and collection as to B’s claims from this Court on the basis of the instant notarial deed.

(this Court 2016TTT 512). [Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The monetary loan contract between the Defendant and B, which is the content of the notarial deed of this case, is an act of assuming false liabilities, and thus, it should be revoked as a fraudulent act, as it further deepens the status of excess of obligations under B and impairs the Plaintiff’s claims.

B. On April 22, 2015, the Defendant: (a) lent KRW 410 million to B on April 22, 2015 by interest rateing to 5% per annum; and (b) on April 22, 2016, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on the real estate owned by B as security; and (c) completed the instant notarial deed with B thereafter.

Therefore, the above act is merely an exercise of creditor's right and does not constitute a fraudulent act.

3. Each set out in subparagraphs 1 through 5 (including each number for those with a serial number) of the judgment.