1. The contract to establish a right to collateral security concluded on February 10, 2015 between the Defendant and G concerning the real estate stated in the attached list.

1. Basic facts

A. Although the Plaintiffs joined the accounts operated by G from July 30, 2012 to September 2015 and paid the payment amount, the Plaintiffs did not receive the payment amount of KRW 91,99,94 from G, KRW 52,400,000 for Plaintiff A, KRW 26,000 for Plaintiff C, KRW 26,50,000 for Plaintiff C, KRW 79,500 for Plaintiff H, and KRW 57,750,000 for Plaintiff E.

B. On February 10, 2015, the Defendant concluded a mortgage agreement with G and the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with respect to the real estate (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), with the maximum debt amount of KRW 100 million, the obligee, and the obligor G, and completed the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “the instant mortgage agreement”) as the receipt No. 1490, Feb. 10, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-2, 3, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged as a preserved claim, the Plaintiffs at the time of the contract to establish the right to collateral security in this case acknowledged that they had a credit for G, and each of the above claims may be the preserved claim for revocation of the fraudulent act.

B. In full view of the evidence evidence No. 2 of G’s insolvent and witness G’s testimony, G is recognized as having exceeded the obligation at the time the instant mortgage contract was concluded.

(c) An act of a debtor in excess of his/her liability for a fraudulent act and providing 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, unless there are special circumstances.

(Supreme Court Decision 97Da10864 delivered on September 9, 1997). The instant mortgage contract constitutes a fraudulent act, since G provided the instant real estate as security to the Defendant, one of the creditors under excess of obligation.

The debtor's intent, which is a subjective element of fraudulent act, is insufficient to secure the joint security of claims.