1. The contract to establish a right to collateral security concluded on September 3, 2015 between the Defendant and C regarding the real estate stated in the attached list.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 26, 2013, the Plaintiff’s claim against C (former: D) was filed a lawsuit against D for claiming compensation for damages (Seoul District Court Branch Branch Decision 2013Kadan28089) and was finalized on November 26, 2013 by the above court “Defendant D shall pay 22,50,000 won out of E, F, G and 45,000 won each, and 5% per annum from November 18, 2001 to May 31, 2003, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The above judgment was finalized on January 23, 2014.

B. On September 3, 2015, the contract to establish a mortgage and the registration C concluded a contract to create a mortgage worth of KRW 70,000,000 with respect to the real estate listed on the separate list owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On the same day, the Incheon District Court completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the part of the Defendant (hereinafter “the registration of establishment of a mortgage”) under the name of the Incheon District Court No. 80617, Sept. 3, 2015.

C. C’s financial status was insolvent at the time of establishing the instant mortgage.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the recognition of the establishment of the preserved claim, it is apparent that the Plaintiff’s claim, such as the above-mentioned No. 1(A), against C, was incurred prior to the conclusion of the instant mortgage contract claiming that the Plaintiff was a fraudulent act. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim becomes a preserved claim

B. The act of a debtor in excess of his/her obligation constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, barring any special circumstance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da10864, Sept. 9, 1997). In such cases, the debtor’s intent of deception is presumed.

(2) We examine the above legal principles.