1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to 12

A. On November 8, 2013, between the Defendant and B.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B, etc. on the claim for reimbursement by Seoul District Court Decision 2002Da66371, and rendered a favorable judgment, and became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On October 25, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B for the interruption of extinctive prescription against the foregoing judgment amount debt by Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Da508223, the Plaintiff rendered a judgment that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 54,273,644 won, as well as 25,003,712 won among them, 18% per annum from October 6, 2000 to June 7, 2002, and 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment” and became final and conclusive on November 16 of the same year.

C. On November 8, 2013, B entered into a mortgage agreement (hereinafter “instant mortgage agreement”) with the Defendant as to each of the instant real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On January 24, 2014, B concluded a mortgage agreement with the Jeonju District Court as the receipt of the maximum debt amount of KRW 200,000,000, and the debtor B and the mortgagee as the Defendant for the registration of the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a mortgage of the instant real estate”).

After that, the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute KRW 114,898,912 to the defendant on May 14, 2015 in the procedure of the compulsory auction of real estate in order to the Jeonju District Court's branch court's branch court's branch court's branch court's branch court's branch court's branch court's branch court'

E. Meanwhile, at the time of establishing the instant mortgage agreement, B was in excess of the obligation, and the Plaintiff’s claim amount for indemnity against B was KRW 143,94,719 as of October 14, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 6 through 10, 28 (including each number if there are virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the establishment of the fraudulent act 1, the conclusion of the mortgage contract of this case in order to secure the defendant's obligation while excess of the debt B is different including the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.