For each real estate listed in the attached Form 1:

A. The Defendant and Nonparty B concluded on January 8, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. (1) On May 17, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with B as between May 17, 2012, with the guarantee amount of KRW 85,00,000,000, and the guarantee period of May 16, 2013, and the creditor C Bank (hereinafter “instant credit guarantee agreement”).

(2) B obtained a loan of KRW 100,000,000 from C Bank on the basis of the instant credit guarantee agreement, and the term of guarantee under the instant credit guarantee agreement was extended until May 15, 2019.

B. 1) B, such as occurrence of a credit guarantee accident and payment by subrogation, did not pay the principal and interest of the C Bank, thereby losing the benefit of time due to the C Bank’s failure. On August 14, 2018, the Plaintiff subrogated 85,000,000 won of the principal and interest of KRW 1,178,076, and thereafter recovered KRW 829,50 from B. The amount of finalized damages incurred therefrom is 227 won. 2) The agreed damages rate for the amount of subrogation is 12% per annum from December 1, 2012 to January 31, 2016, and is 10% per annum from February 1, 2016.

C. B, on January 8, 2019, the act of disposal of the property in B, which was insolvent, entered into a mortgage contract with the Defendant as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 70,000,000 on January 16, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found earlier, the Plaintiff’s claim for recourse under the credit guarantee agreement of this case against B is a preserved claim for obligee’s right of revocation, and B’s conclusion of a mortgage contract with the Defendant in excess of its obligation constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the mortgage contract of this case between B and the defendant should be revoked by fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the mortgage establishment registration of this case to B due to restitution to the original state.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.