1. The contract to establish a right to collateral security concluded on August 5, 2014 between C and the Defendant regarding each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 1, 2009, Busan District Court Decision 2009Hu16868, “G Co., Ltd., H, and C shall jointly and severally pay to E 100,000,000 won and 19% interest per annum from July 30, 2004 to the date of full payment” filed with G Co., Ltd. and the F Co., Ltd.’s trustee in bankruptcy and F (hereinafter “E”) applied for a loan payment order against G Co., Ltd., H, and H, and the above payment order was finalized on July 30, 2009.

B. On December 31, 2015, E transferred the above loan claims to the Plaintiff, and notified C of the transfer of claims.

C. On August 5, 2014, C concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendant regarding each of the real estate shares listed in the separate sheet as joint collateral with regard to each of the above real estate shares, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 156,00,000,000, the debtor H and the mortgagee as the defendant, and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage in the name of the Defendant on the same day.

At the time, C had no other assets than the above real estate shares, and was in excess of obligations.

On December 12, 2019, the distribution schedule was prepared that the Defendant received KRW 43,042,872 as a mortgagee as a mortgagee.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 6, 7 evidence, result of an order to submit taxation information to the Busan Young-gu Office, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination C on the cause of the claim is that the agreement to establish a mortgage with the defendant as to each of the above real estate shares, which is the only property in excess of the obligation, is insufficient to secure the joint collateral of the claim in excess of the obligation, and is a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, who is the creditor. According to the above recognition, C, the debtor, was aware that the conclusion of the agreement to establish a mortgage, as above, would have known that the joint collateral would be less deficient, and the defendant's bad faith as the beneficiary is the beneficiary.