1. As to real estate listed in the annex 1 list:

A. The sales contract concluded on June 24, 2013 between Nonparty E and the Defendant is concluded.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 21, 2012, Nonparty 1) loaned KRW 226 million to E with the due date on June 30, 2012, Nonparty 2 agreed to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 30% per annum if E fails to repay the loan by the due date. 2) The NetworkF died on September 1, 2013. At the time of death, Nonparty 1, his wife, Plaintiff B, and C, his wife.

B. E’s act of disposing of property 1) E is a real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list (hereinafter “instant apartment”) between the Defendant, who is a female and female, on June 24, 2013.

2) As to the sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”)

2) On June 28, 2013, the title transfer registration (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”) was entered into on the part of the Defendant under the title transfer registration number No. 13500 received on June 28, 2013.

(2) On July 9, 2013, E concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendant to create a mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage agreement of this case”) with the obligor and the maximum debt amount of KRW 300 million with respect to each real estate indicated in the separate sheet No. 2, and accordingly, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage creation”) was completed on July 9, 2013 at the Sungwon District Court, Sungwon-nam Branch Office, Sungnam Branch Office, 1448, which was received on July 9, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 4, and Gap's 6 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for the apartment of this case

A. The plaintiffs argued that the contract of this case was concluded in collusion with the defendant, who is a female student, without paying the actual purchase price, and thus invalid as it constitutes a false conspiracy, and thus, the registration of transfer of ownership of this case should be cancelled as it is invalid. However, the mere fact that E and the defendant are male branching.