1. As to KRW 28,405,535 and KRW 28,071,592 among the Plaintiff, Defendant A shall be from September 11, 2019 to November 28, 2019.

1. Each fact described in Attachment 2 of the underlying facts shall be without dispute between the parties, or it may be recognized as either of the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry described in Evidence A 1 to Evidence A 7, and Evidence B 4 to Evidence 5 (including each number).

2. Judgment on the confession as to the claim against Defendant A (Article 208 (3) 2, the main sentence of Article 150 (3) and the main sentence of paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. Determination on the claim against Defendant Korea Technology Finance Corporation

A. 1) Determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the claim for the right of revocation 1) The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that at the time of establishing a mortgage agreement in this case, the legal relationship that is the basis of the Plaintiff’s claim for the reimbursement against Defendant A had already been formed, and it was highly probable that the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement would have been created based on such legal relationship in the near future. In fact, the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against Defendant A was realized as soon as this probability was established, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement was established. As such, it is required that the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement is, in principle, arising before the act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act was performed. However, there was a high probability that the legal relationship which already serves as the basis of the establishment of the claim at the time of the fraudulent act was established, and that the claim would have been established in the near future, and that it would have been likely that the claim would have been created at least after the obligor’s claim for reimbursement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da638.