1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the part of the first instance court No. 4, No. 5, and No. 19, and the part of the first instance court’s decision No. 4, No. 5, and No. 19, are as follows. Thus, it shall be cited by the main text of Article 4

2. In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following facts: (a) the part used after completion of the instant mortgage right; (b) Gap’s written evidence Nos. 12 through 19; and (c) Eul’s written evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant leased KRW 45 million to C on January 27, 2012 at 1.5% of the interest rate; and (c) January 30, 2014; (d) on April 8, 2014, C created the instant mortgage right and borrowed KRW 50 million from the Defendant on December 31, 2014; and (e) the amount of KRW 265,513,400,000, KRW 400,000, KRW 500,000 from the Defendant on December 31, 2014; and (e) the amount of KRW 265,768,000,000, KRW 975,000.

Therefore, the conclusion of the instant mortgage contract with the Defendant, who is a specific creditor under excess of the obligation, constitutes a fraudulent act that reduces the liability property. In light of various circumstances revealed in the argument of the instant case, such as the financial condition of C at the time of the instant mortgage contract, C and the Defendant, the relationship between C and the Defendant, and the time of the conclusion of the instant mortgage contract, it is reasonable to deem that C was aware that the instant mortgage contract was an act detrimental to the Plaintiff, which is the creditor, and the

3.