1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. It was concluded on June 9, 2020 between C and the Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed an application with D and C for the payment order of the acquisition amount of the deposit amount of KRW 970,382,80,000 as well as KRW 960,00 as to KRW 10% per annum from May 27, 2020 to July 7, 2020, the Seoul Central District Court ordered D and C to pay the payment order of KRW 12% per annum as to KRW 970,382,80 as well as KRW 960,00 as to KRW 960,00 among them, and the payment order was served on July 7, 2020 and finalized on July 22, 2020.

B. On June 9, 2020, C entered into a mortgage agreement establishing the right to collateral security with regard to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in order to secure the Defendant’s obligation for a loan amount of KRW 100 million, which the Defendant owes to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On June 9, 2020, as the Daejeon District Court’s official branch office was received on June 9, 2020, the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “registration of establishment of the right to collateral security”) with regard to the instant real estate was completed.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4 (including virtual number), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) An act of a debtor in excess of his/her obligation to offer real estate owned by him/her to any one of the creditors as collateral for claims constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, except in extenuating circumstances;

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da83428, Dec. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to conclude the instant mortgage contract with the content of offering the instant real estate as security to the Defendant, barring special circumstances.