1. The contract to establish a mortgage on May 22, 2013 between the Defendant and the Nonparty Co., Ltd. concerning the attached real estate indicated in the attached Form B.

1. Basic facts

A. (1) Loans, etc. (1) Loans, etc. (hereinafter “BB bank prior to bankruptcy”) extended each of the loans, around May 28, 2010, to Non-Party B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party B”) 6.75 billion won (interest rate of 7% per annum, delay damages rate of 19% per annum) and 80 million won per annum (interest rate of 9% per annum, delay damages rate of 21% per annum) around the 31st day of the same month.

(2) On June 24, 2011, the bankruptcy was declared against the bank prior to the bankruptcy, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy of the bank prior to the bankruptcy.

(Seoul Central District Court 201Hau72). (b)

(1) On July 22, 2010, the non-party company acquired the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”).

(2) On May 22, 2013, the Ulsan District Court (hereinafter “Ulsan District Court”) completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on May 22, 2013, “the maximum amount of claims KRW 120 million, the debtor C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-party C”), the mortgagee of the right to collateral security,” and “the Defendant of the right to collateral security,” which was based on the contract concluded on May 22, 2013 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(hereinafter referred to as the registration of the instant collateral security) C.

The instant real estate was the only property with the collateral ownership of the non-party company at the time of the instant contract.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, fact inquiry results, witness D, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. As to the defense of this case

A. The Plaintiff’s major assertion (1) The instant contract constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the obligee, and thus, according to the Plaintiff’s exercise of the right of revocation of the claim, the instant contract is revoked and the registration of the instant collateral security should be revoked.

(2) The Defendant’s assertion revealed that around May 2013, the time of the instant contract, the Plaintiff was aware of the instant contract.

The plaintiff's contract of this case.