1. The contract to establish a mortgage between the Defendant and B on September 18, 2015 is concluded regarding real estate stated in the attached list.

Facts of recognition

The Dongyang Life Insurance Co., Ltd. filed a payment order against B with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2012 tea53917, Aug. 10, 2012, the above court issued a payment order to B, “B shall pay to C, etc., 39,28,524 won and 37,911,780 won, calculated at the rate of 29% per annum from the day after the last delivery of the original copy of the payment order to the day of full payment.” The above payment order was finalized around that time.

On December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the sales of bonds with the Dongyang Life Insurance Co., Ltd., and acquired the claim of KRW 37,407,655 based on the above payment order held by the Dongyang Life Insurance Co., Ltd. against B, and the Dongyang Life Insurance Co., Ltd. notified this to B.

B On September 18, 2015, with regard to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), the Defendant entered into a mortgage agreement with the debtor B, the mortgagee, the Defendant, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 40 million (hereinafter “instant mortgage agreement”). On September 18, 2015, with respect to the instant real estate as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “instant establishment”) was completed on September 18, 2015 by the Government Registry of the District Court No. 107973, Sept. 18, 2015.

B is a situation of exceeding the obligation, which does not have any particular property as of the date of closing of argument, around the time when the Defendant entered into the instant mortgage contract with the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, the entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the decision of the purport of the whole pleadings, the act of an obligor in excess of his/her obligation to provide real estate to any one of his/her creditors is presumed to be a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors unless there are special circumstances. In the event the obligor's offering of security to a third party constitutes a fraudulent act objectively, the act is presumed to be a fraudulent act.