1. As to the 2/9 shares among the real estate listed in the separate sheet on September 11, 2012 by the Defendant and Nonparty B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, as a juristic person established under the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, acquired the claim of 59,905,997 won (including delay damages) against B from ELD Investment Securities Company as shown in the attached Form, and notified B of the fact.

B. Around September 11, 2012, Nonparty C, the father of B, died and succeeded to C as the inheritor’s heir according to each statutory inheritance portion (the Defendant’s 3/9, and the remainder 2/9, respectively), and B and the inheritor inherited the inheritance registration under the Defendant’s name on January 16, 2013, following a consultation on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant inheritance division agreement”). B and the inheritor, who is the inherited property of Nonparty C, agreed to jointly own G apartment Nos. 103, 101 (hereinafter “instant real property”).

C. On January 16, 2013, the Defendant acquired each secured obligation of KRW 28,00,000 as well as KRW 28,000 of the secured obligation of KRW 11,00,000 (the maximum amount of claims) set forth in the first collateral security (the maximum amount of claims) and the second collateral security (the maximum amount of claims KRW 11,00,000) set forth in the previous real estate at the instant real estate, and completed the additional registration to which each debtor is changed from C.

B At the time of the agreement on the division of the inherited property of this case, there was no particular active property other than the inheritance shares of this case, and there was only small property equivalent to KRW 59,905,997, even if the principal and interest claims against the Plaintiff were collected, and thus, it was in excess of the obligation.

[Ground for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including a branch number, if any)

(i) each family member, reply to the order of submission to the Jinhae Agricultural Cooperative, inquiry reply to the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the purport of the entire pleadings]

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the fact that the existence of the secured claim is recognized, the Plaintiff is a creditor who already acquired the claim prior to the agreement on the division of inherited property of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the acquired amount is subject to the revocation of fraudulent act

B. The agreement on the division of inherited property for the establishment of a fraudulent act shall be reached.