1. A contract establishing a right to collateral security concluded on October 21, 2015 between B and the Defendant regarding the real estate stated in the attached list.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. (1) B (the Defendant’s birth) received a loan of KRW 38,00,000 on September 27, 2013 from Yan Agricultural Cooperative, the management institution of farmers and fishermen’s credit guarantee funds, which is the Plaintiff’s business entrusted with the Plaintiff’s business, and the Plaintiff issued a credit guarantee certificate (Guarantee Number C) on KRW 32,30,000 out of the above loan, and provided a credit guarantee for the above loan.

(2) B obtained a loan of KRW 10,00,000 from 0,000 on September 27, 2013 from 00 agricultural cooperatives, and the Plaintiff issued a credit guarantee certificate (Guarantee Number D) on KRW 8,500,000 out of the above loan and provided a credit guarantee for the above debt.

(3) B failed to repay each of the above obligations to the White Agricultural Cooperative. Based on the credit guarantee agreement, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 41,854,488, including the total amount of KRW 33,134,804 (Guarantee Number C), KRW 8,719,684 (Guarantee Number D) on December 30, 2015, and the claim for indemnity against B arose.

B. On October 21, 2015, B concluded a contract to establish a mortgage with a maximum debt amount of KRW 120,000,000 to the Defendant. On October 28, 2015, B concluded a contract to establish a mortgage with a maximum debt amount of KRW 130,20,00,000 and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage

(2) On the other hand, the provisional attachment right holder B is insolvent such as the Plaintiff, the amount of the preserved claim is KRW 41,90,998, and the provisional attachment right holder is the Plaintiff, the preservation claim amount is KRW 14,927,520, the amount of the preserved claim amount, and the provisional attachment right holder is the Plaintiff, the preservation claim amount is KRW 85,259,114.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1-10's entries, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. (1) Determination is required that the claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation was, in principle, incurred prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da2534, Feb. 10, 1995). However, at the time of such fraudulent act, there was a legal relationship that has already been based on which the claim was established.