1. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim against defendant E-stock company is dismissed.

2. Defendants B, C, and D are jointly and severally liable.

1. Claim against Defendant B, C, and D

(a) As shown in the reasons for the claim in the annexed sheet;

(b) Defendant B and C: Decision by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act): Defendant D: constructive confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Claim against Defendant E-stock company

A. On July 18, 2016, Defendant B: (a) the date and amount of the loan to the Plaintiff under Article 499 of the Certificate of F Office of Notary Public No. 499; (b) “150,000,000 won on July 18, 2016”; (c) the due date and time of payment; (d) “20,80,000 won on August 20, 2016”; (e) “24% on a yearly interest rate”; and (e) a notarial deed of money loan agreement concluded with Defendant C as a joint and several surety (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

(2) On February 14, 2017, Defendant D entered into a real estate security trust agreement (hereinafter “instant trust agreement”) with Defendant E on each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and on February 16, 2017, each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, and the separate sheet Nos. 4840, the Changwon District Court was 4840, and the separate sheet Nos. 3, 5, and 7 were 4839, respectively, for each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 4, and 6, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 Plaintiff’s claim for the revocation of the fraudulent act against Defendant D’s claim for the preservation claim (main claim) is based on the fair settlement of this case, although Defendant D was not written as a borrower on the instant notarial deed, since Defendant B newly constructed a loan on the land outside G G in Yangyang-si on behalf of Defendant D, and borrowed KRW 150 million from the Plaintiff as the construction price.