1.(a)

With respect to each real estate set forth in [Attachment] Nos. 6 through 8 between the Plaintiff and Defendant D, F and Defendant D.

1. Determination as to claims against Defendant B and C

A. On December 15, 2006, G borrowed KRW 200,000 from the Plaintiff as the wife of G on December 15, 2006, with the purport that the Plaintiff would jointly and severally repay the said borrowed amount from the Plaintiff. Thereafter, until October 28, 2011, G borrowed KRW 625,00,000 in total from the Plaintiff on 23 occasions. Since most of the borrowed amount was traded into a passbook in the name of G, G was jointly and severally liable to repay the said KRW 625,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

G: (a) On January 17, 2013, the Defendant B, who was his deception, entered into a mortgage agreement with regard to each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 4; (b) the Incheon District Court’s father-Support Kimpo-so, Kimpo-so, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the name of the Defendant B was completed as of January 17, 2013; and (c) on May 21, 2015, the Defendant C entered into a pre-sale agreement with each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 5; and (d) the registration of the right to claim a transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant C was completed as of May 26, 2015 as of May 26, 2015.

Since G was insolvent due to the conclusion of the above contract to establish a collateral security and the pre-sale agreement, the above contract to establish a collateral security and the pre-sale agreement should be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act, and to restore G to its original state, Defendant B shall register cancellation of the above pre-sale agreement, and Defendant C shall implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the above right to claim a transfer

B. Defendant B’s judgment on the main defense of Defendant B’s main defense was based on the Plaintiff’s knowledge of the fact that Defendant B, a fraud of G, concluded a mortgage agreement with G around the end of January, 2013, and thus, Defendant B, who was at least two years and five months thereafter, became aware of the fact that the instant lawsuit filed on June 23, 2015 was unlawful as the exclusion period of one year is the lapse of the exclusion period of one year.

According to Article 406 (2) of the Civil Code, a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act shall be filed from the date the creditor becomes aware of the cause of revocation.