1. As to the real estate recorded in the attached list:

A contract to establish a mortgage between B and the Defendant on November 29, 2017.

1. Basic facts

(a) The reasons for the claim are as shown in the annex;

B. From February 3, 2016 to October 24, 2017, the Defendant determined a total of KRW 795,000,000 to B as 4% per month interest.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Evidence Nos. 1 through 13, the fact inquiry results against the Court Administration Office of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the facts of the recognition as above, although at the time of the contract of the right to collateral security, the Plaintiff did not have any claim for indemnity against B at the time of the contract of the right to collateral security, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the pertinent credit guarantee agreement was already concluded, which is a legal relationship that serves as the basis for the establishment of the right to claim reimbursement at the time of the contract of the right to claim reimbursement, and the occurrence of a guarantee accident regarding the credit guarantee agreement of the instant case, around one week after the contract of the right to claim reimbursement was concluded, there was a high probability that the right to claim reimbursement would be created pursuant to the credit guarantee agreement of the instant case in the near future at the time of the contract of the right to collateral security in question. In fact, it was highly probable in the near future, and thus, the Plaintiff’s right

B. According to the facts of the recognition of the establishment of a fraudulent act, the establishment of the instant collateral security by B, one of the creditors, is a fraudulent act resulting in the lack of joint security in relation to other creditors, including the Plaintiff, etc., and at the time, B, the representative director of the non-party company, who is the representative director of the non-party company, was thereby detrimental to the Plaintiff.

As the defendant's bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary, the mortgage contract of this case should be cancelled as a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances.