1. With respect to the first floor No. 101, 109, Seo-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Incheon:

A. It was concluded on June 3, 2013 between the Defendant and D.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 15, 2013, D agreed to jointly and severally with the husband E, who is the husband, to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 130 million of the borrowed amount by December 1, 2009, up to February 15, 2013, and to pay the interest calculated at the rate of 20% per annum to the Plaintiff separately.

B. On June 3, 2013, D entered into a mortgage contract (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with respect to the first floor Nos. 109, 101, and 109, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, the only property owned by the Defendant, who is the developer, on the same day, as E, and concluded a mortgage contract (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the Defendant on the same day. On the same day, D completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a neighboring apartment”).

C. On June 20, 2013, D entered into a sales contract for the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant, and on the same day, D completed the registration of transfer of ownership as stated in Section 1(b) of the Disposition against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant transfer of ownership”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), fact-finding inquiry reply to the Northwest-gu Office of Western, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. D was liable to the Plaintiff (affirmative property: the market price of the apartment of this case is from KRW 100 to KRW 112 million) while it was liable to the Plaintiff for the debt (the amount equivalent to KRW 130 million, and the delay damages thereof): D entered into the instant mortgage contract and the instant apartment contract with the Defendant with respect to the apartment of this case, which is the only property equivalent to the above debt of KRW 130 million and the delay damages, and completed the registration of the establishment and the registration of the transfer of the ownership.

The act of offering and selling the apartment of this case, which is the only property of D having been in excess of debt, as security, to the defendant, is a fraudulent act in case of causing a shortage in common security of general creditors or deepening the shortage.