1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. The contract to establish a mortgage concluded on January 1, 2017 between the Defendant and D.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 3, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) on February 4, 2017, stipulating that the Plaintiff will pay to the Plaintiff the principal and interest of the obligation owed by the Nonparty Company pursuant to the said loan agreement within the limit of KRW 120 million on the same day.

B. On January 1, 2017, D concluded a mortgage agreement of KRW 70,40,000 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the attached list (hereinafter “mortgage”) with the Defendant, and completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage”) to the Defendant as the head of Suwon District Court No. 25062 on April 16, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's evidence 1 through 7, the result of the dispatch of documents to the Suwon District Court's assistance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. In a case where the obligor’s property to determine the cause of the claim is insufficient to fully repay the obligor’s obligation, if the obligor provided his/her property as a collateral to a certain obligee, barring any special circumstance, it would harm the interests of other obligees, and thus, constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other obligees, and the same applies even if the property offered as a collateral is not the obligor’s sole property, or is less than

(1) As recognized earlier, D’s establishment of the instant mortgage was in excess of the obligation at the time of the conclusion of the instant mortgage agreement. As such, D’s establishment of the instant mortgage was reduced in relation to other creditors, including the Plaintiff, etc.