1. A contract establishing a right to collateral security concluded between the Defendant and B on May 14, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s credit guarantee (1) issued, September 21, 2015, a letter of credit guarantee that the Plaintiff guarantees KRW 100,000,000 to KRW 90,000,000 for Cbank loans of KRW 100.

The term of guarantee was until September 20, 2016, and it was extended until December 19, 2019.

(2) B had lost the benefit of time on May 21, 2019 by delinquency in the payment of interest on the loan.

On August 5, 2019, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 73,669,930 to C Bank.

B. The debtor B’s disposal of the property (1) B completed the registration of the creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) in the future of the defendant on May 14, 2019 on the grounds of the contract to establish the same day as of May 14, 2019 regarding the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(2) On August 7, 2019, upon the Defendant’s request, the voluntary auction procedure was initiated regarding the instant real estate.

C. B’s excess of obligations (1) B did not have any property other than the instant real property.

The appraised value of the instant real estate during the voluntary auction procedure was KRW 221 million.

(2) In addition to the Plaintiff’s obligations against the Plaintiff, B had a debt of KRW 130 million for a bank loan with the instant real property as security, a delinquent national tax of KRW 30 million for a delinquent amount of KRW 30 million, and an E Union loan of KRW 140 million for a debt of KRW 140 million. Other financial institutions and credit card companies had a delinquent local tax.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 3, 4, Gap evidence 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. (1) An act of offering one’s own real estate as security in excess of his/her obligation constitutes a fraudulent act against other obligees, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da50015, May 8, 2001). (2) According to the facts acknowledged above, B did not have sufficient property to fully repay the obligation, and the Plaintiff is highly likely to make the payment by subrogation because he/she has lost the interest on the loan due to delayed payment.