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

A. The reservation entered into on November 15, 2016 between Nonparty C and the Defendant is made.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff received a payment order from Nonparty C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Party D”) as of August 2, 2016, stating that “The debtor shall pay to the creditor 352,00,000 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from December 31, 2014 to the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and 15% per annum from the next day to the delivery date of the instant payment order,” and the above payment order was issued by the Busan District Court as of August 2, 2016, stating that “The debtor shall pay the creditor 352,00,000 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”

9. 13. The decision was finalized as is.

B. On June 2, 2014, the Nonparty: (a) on November 15, 2016, filed a provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “instant provisional registration”) on the real estate indicated in the separate sheet that acquired ownership (hereinafter “instant real estate”); (b) the Busan District Court received the promise to trade the same day (hereinafter “instant promise”); and (c) on November 15, 2016, the Nonparty registered the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “instant provisional registration”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. At the time of the establishment of the secured claim and the non-party’s promise to sell and purchase this case, the Plaintiff had a loan claim against the non-party as seen earlier.

B. The debtor's act of offering real estate, the sole property of which is one of the obligees, which has already been missing in excess of his/her obligation, as collateral for his/her claim, becomes a fraudulent act subject to creditor's right of revocation in relation to other obligees (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da43352, Apr. 12, 2002). In cases where the debtor's act of offering collateral against a third party constitutes a fraudulent act objectively, the beneficiary's malicious act is presumed to have been committed, so unless the beneficiary proves that he/she was bona fide at the time of the juristic act, the creditor must cancel the juristic act and restore the original status accordingly.