1. On March 29, 2019, the real estate indicated in the separate sheet between the Defendant and Nonparty C was concluded between the Defendant and Nonparty C.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s monetary claim against C filed an application for payment order with the Seogu District Court Branch of Seogu District Court No. 2019j688, May 2, 2019 against C, and the said court issued a payment order ordering C to pay “60,488,210 won and damages for delay from March 28, 2019 (hereinafter “instant payment order”) for KRW 60,000,000,000, which became final and conclusive around that time.

(A) According to the attached form of claim attached to the instant payment order, the date the Plaintiff commenced calculating damages for delay for the above KRW 60 million shall be February 13, 2019.

C’s act of offering collateral to the Defendant 1), while C on March 21, 2019, the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(2) On November 15, 2018, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of inheritance. (2) On March 29, 2019, the Defendant is the “mortgage-mortgage” of this case, which is 25 million won or less of the maximum debt amount arising from the contract to establish the same date regarding the instant real estate.

Upon completion of the registration of creation (the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings).

2. Determination as to the claim

A. 1) According to the facts established prior to the existence of the preserved claim, the Plaintiff’s pecuniary claim against C may be recognized prior to the existence of the secured claim. Thus, the above monetary claim may be a preserved claim seeking revocation of the mortgage contract of this case. 2) In light of the above legal principles, barring any special circumstance, the act of offering real estate, which is the only property of the obligor, to one of the obligees, as a claim security, constitutes a fraudulent act subject to creditor’s right of revocation in relation to other obligees (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5710, Apr. 14, 2006).