1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant B and C and Defendant D’s appeal are all dismissed.

2. Between the Plaintiff, Defendant B and C.

The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the claim against Defendant B and C is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff borrowed the sum of KRW 625 million from the Plaintiff, along with the wife F, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to repay the said borrowed amount to the Plaintiff.

G is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the above borrowed money, since G committed a tort by deceiving the Plaintiff as if it had the intent or ability to repay the borrowed money to the Plaintiff, even though it did not have the intent or ability to do so.

G has borrowed a sum of KRW 200 million from F, and as such, G is obligated to repay the above borrowed amount to the Plaintiff who subrogated the insolvent F.

G entered into a mortgage contract with Defendant B on January 17, 2013 as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 4 and completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring real estate to Defendant B on the same day. On May 21, 2015, Defendant C entered into a pre-contract with each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 5 and made a pre-contract with Defendant C on May 21, 2015.

5. 26. Defendant C completed the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer.

G was insolvent due to the above contract to establish a collateral security and the pre-contract for sale, so the contract to establish a collateral security and the pre-contract for sale constitute a fraudulent act.

According to G’s exercise of obligee’s right of revocation, the above mortgage contract and the pre-sale agreement should be revoked, and due to restitution to its original state, Defendant B is obliged to register cancellation of the above pre-sale mortgage registration, and Defendant C is obliged to implement the above transfer of ownership registration procedure.

The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court on the main defense of Defendant B is as follows.

Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

It is assumed that the authenticity of the stamp image of the loan claim amounting to KRW 625 billion is based on the intention of the holder of the title deed when determining the existence of the preserved claim.