1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet

A. It was concluded on April 30, 2012 between Defendant B and D.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 5, 2012, the Plaintiff leased KRW 30 million to D as of May 30, 2012.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant loan claim”) b.

D With respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”), on April 30, 2012, Defendant B entered into a mortgage agreement with Defendant C (hereinafter “instant one contract”) and on July 23, 2012, respectively, and entered into a mortgage agreement with Defendant C (hereinafter “instant two contracts”). On April 30, 2012, the registration office of receipt of the branch office of the Changwon District Court was 11516, the registration office of the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “instant one registration”) in the name of Defendant B (hereinafter “instant one registration”), and on July 23, 2012, the registration office was issued for the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “instant two registration”).

C. D was in excess of obligations at the time of the instant 1 and 2 contracts.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5 evidence, Eul 1 to 10 evidence, Eul 1, 2 and 3 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the instant loan claim was already established at the time of the instant contract 1 and 2, and thus, the instant loan claim is subject to the obligee’s right of revocation regarding the instant 1 and 2 contract.

B. The act of an obligor, in excess of the obligation to establish a fraudulent act, providing real estate owned by him/her to any one of the creditors, as collateral security, constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da10864, Sept. 9, 1997). According to the above basic facts, D provided the instant apartment that he/she owned in excess of the obligation as collateral security to the Defendants, barring special circumstances, and thus, the instant contracts 1 and 2 constitute a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors, including the Plaintiff.

C. The Defendants, as to whether they were in bad faith, shall damage general creditors at the time of the instant contract 1 and 2.