1. On December 14, 2015, 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. On April 1, 2015, the Plaintiff invested KRW 120 million on the condition that D return of the investment amount after the agreed period (one year from the date when D received the investment amount) expires with C’s recommendation.

B. On April 2, 2015, C issued and delivered to the Plaintiff a promissory note, the face value of which is KRW 120,000,000, and the due date of which is April 2, 2016, in order to secure the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the said investment amount (hereinafter “instant promissory note”). A notary public prepared and issued a notarial deed as a law firm E-notarial deed with respect to the instant promissory note as the number of 126, 2015.

C. On December 14, 2015, C concluded a mortgage establishment agreement (hereinafter “mortgage establishment agreement”) with the Defendant regarding the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant apartment”) on the attached list, and on October 4, 2016, on October 4, 2016, C completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage as stated in the attached list (hereinafter “mortgage establishment registration”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that, inasmuch as the shortage of joint collateral between C and the general creditors is deepened by entering into a mortgage contract of this case on the apartment of this case, which is the only property of C, with his own property under excess of his obligation, the mortgage contract of this case should be revoked as a fraudulent act.

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that at the time of establishing the mortgage of this case, the plaintiff did not have a claim for preservation, and the defendant did not know that the mortgage of this case would prejudice the general creditors of C.

3. Determination

A. The existence of the Promissory Notes, which was issued on April 2, 2016, as the due date for payment, in order to secure the repayment obligation of D’s investment funds to the Plaintiff on April 2, 2015, is as seen earlier.

3.2