1. A contract transfer agreement entered into on September 19, 2014 between the Defendants and F (GG) with respect to the right to collateral security entered in the separate sheet.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 30, 2014, the Plaintiff paid a loan of F amount of KRW 200,000,000 by subrogation and has a claim for indemnity equivalent to the above amount.

B. Meanwhile, with respect to No. 1202 of the 12th floor of the 12th floor of the building in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, H, the Seoul Eastern District Court (Seoul Eastern District Court No. 3107, May 26, 2009) concluded a contract establishing the grounds for registration on the same day, the maximum debt amount of which is KRW 500,000,000, and the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage with the mortgagee F (hereinafter “instant collateral security”).

C. F: (a) On September 22, 2014, the Seoul Eastern District Court received the instant mortgage on September 22, 2014, issued a supplementary registration of the transfer of the right to collateral security by designating the contractual assignment and the mortgagee as the Defendants on September 19, 2014; and (b) concluded a supplementary registration of the transfer of the right to collateral security.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

Defendant B is the mother in F’s prevention; Defendant C is the second mother of F; Defendant D is the wife of F; Defendant E is the mother of F; and Defendant E is the female of F.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 5 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s judgment on the cause of the claim has a claim for reimbursement against F with respect to F.

Comprehensively taking account of the written evidence evidence Nos. 3, 6, and 7, the purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: (a) an apartment owned by F at the time of the instant disposal act was established with the establishment of a collateral security right above the market price; (b) there was no value of the property; and (c) registered as a bad credit holder from November 2014.

The Defendants asserted that F had a claim equivalent to KRW 1.2 billion against J at the time of the instant disposition. However, each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 11 through 27 (including the serial number) is insufficient to recognize the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The defendants' assertion is without merit.

The act of transferring the right to collateral security of this case, which has property value in excess of the F, to the Defendants, is an act of reducing the joint security of the general creditors.