1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, a mortgage contract concluded on August 27, 2018 between D and the Defendant is concluded.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and 12 (Partial No. 12 omitted) and the overall purport of the pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 150 million to D from January 17, 2013 to November 19, 2013; D has lost the benefit of time by delaying the payment of interest on the loan from July 15, 2018; D entered into a mortgage agreement with the defendant on August 27, 2018 with regard to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, and completed a mortgage agreement with the defendant around August 28, 2018, and completed a mortgage agreement with the defendant as to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, and registered the mortgage agreement with D as a debt exceeding the maximum debt amount as of November 14, 2018.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the mortgage agreement concluded between D and the defendant on each real estate listed in the separate list constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, who is the creditor, and the defendant's malicious faith is presumed. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the above mortgage agreement should be revoked, and the defendant has the duty to cancel the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage to D.

2. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion that since the amount of the claim secured by the senior mortgage already established regarding each real estate listed in the separate sheet exceeds the value of the real estate, the above real estate does not constitute a fraudulent act because it has no value as a responsible property for general creditors, it can be acknowledged that the senior mortgage was established with regard to each real estate listed in the separate sheet at the time of establishment of the Defendant’s right to collateral security, according to each of the evidence No. 1-1, No. 2, and No. 3, the maximum debt amount of each real estate indicated in the separate sheet at the time of establishment of the right to collateral security was KRW 52 million (the mortgagee E.), 60 million (the mortgagee E.), and KRW 40 million (the mortgagee G).

However, some of Gap evidence Nos. 8 to 12 are numbers.