1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,575,342 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from June 24, 2016 to September 27, 2016, and the following.

1. Under the circumstances of the case, the following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 5, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 4-2, and Eul evidence 6.

The Plaintiff (former: hereinafter “instant real estate”) completed the registration of creation of a mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage creation”) with respect to the non-party-party-party-party-owned B’s 504m2 and above ground-based and save’s above ground-based and save’s save (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with respect to ① the mortgagee of the instant mortgage-backed property as the Plaintiff on October 22, 2007, under Seoul Central District Court’s registration No. 79907, Oct. 2, 2007, the debtor as Seoul Central District Court’s 4,000,000 won and the maximum debt amount (hereinafter “instant B”), ② the registration of creation of a mortgage with respect to the real estate as the debtor’s commercial leather and save’s 920,000,000 won (hereinafter “instant maximum debt amount”) as the Seoul District Court’s registration office’s 107414, Jul. 25, 2013.

B. The Defendant brought a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, A, etc. on July 2014, seeking revocation of each of the above mortgage contract, etc., and filed a claim for reimbursement, etc. against the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2014Gahap35624 on August 7, 2014, on the ground that each of the instant mortgage contract, which was the cause of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, was a fraudulent act detrimental to the Defendant, a creditor against A, etc., and (2) the right to be preserved was the right to claim for registration of cancellation of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage upon revocation of a fraudulent act.