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

A. On January 201, 2019 between the Defendant and the non-party agricultural company B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 22, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with a limited company Company B (hereinafter “Limited Company B”), whereby the amount of the loan is KRW 300 million, interest rate of KRW 4.08% per annum, interest rate of delayed compensation rate of KRW 12% per annum, ② on August 22, 2019, the amount of the loan is KRW 200 million, interest rate of KRW 200 million per annum, interest rate of KRW 2.45% per annum, and delayed compensation rate of KRW 6% per annum.

B. As of September 25, 2020, as of September 25, 202, the amount of loans that a limited company B shall pay to the Plaintiff according to the above loan agreement is KRW 407,698,111.

(c)

Limited Company B is the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(d)

On September 20, 2019, the limited liability company B, which was liable for the payment of the goods to the Defendant, entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant on the claim amounting to KRW 150 million with respect to the instant real estate (hereinafter “mortgage agreement”). On the same day, the Defendant had completed the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security”) to the Defendant under Article 17261 of the South Korea District Court’s receipt of support from the South Korea District Court prior to the same day.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6 through 9, 11, Eul's evidence No. 11, and Eul's fact-finding with respect to the administrative office of the court of this court, the result of this court's order to submit each financial transaction information to the C Co., Ltd. of this court and D banks (which was filed on January 29, 2021), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. An act of an obligor in excess of his/her obligation to offer real estate owned by him/her to a certain person among creditors as collateral constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da10864, Sept. 9, 1997). B. Examining the facts acknowledged earlier in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is reasonable that a limited company B, which was in excess of its obligation, completed the registration of the establishment of the instant right to collateral security with respect to the instant real estate to the Defendant, a specific creditor.