1. On March 8, 2012, the real estate indicated in the separate sheet between the Defendant and Nonparty C was concluded.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 1, 1997, the Plaintiff lent KRW 17,000,000 to C and was unable to receive the loan, which became final and conclusive on June 6, 2013 under the Changwon District Court Seoyang Branch Order 2013j217.

B. On March 8, 2012, where a small property exceeds positive property, C is a contract establishing a mortgage (hereinafter “instant mortgage contract”) between the Defendant and the Defendant regarding the real estate indicated in the attached list.

(C) The registration of establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a mortgage of this case”) consisting of the maximum debt amount of KRW 45,000,000,000, the maximum debt amount of which was received on March 9, 2012, is deemed as the registration of establishment of a mortgage of this case.

3) The grounds for recognition were as follows. [The entry of evidence A1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Where the debtor's property is insufficient to fully repay his/her obligation, if the debtor provided his/her property to a certain creditor as payment in kind or as a security, it would prejudice the interests of other creditors and becomes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da47301, Feb. 23, 2007). Barring special circumstances, C's offering of real property recorded in the separate sheet to the defendant, one of the creditors, as security in excess of his/her obligation, constitutes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, who is the creditor, and C's intent is recognized, while the defendant, the beneficiary, was presumed to have been aware of such circumstances.

In this regard, the defendant argued that C was unaware of whether C was in excess of its obligation and completed the registration of creation of a new mortgage by normal procedure. However, in a lawsuit for revocation of fraudulent act, the beneficiary has the burden of proving that C was a fraudulent act, and in this case, there is objective and objective evidence that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, etc. should be supported.