1. On February 7, 2014, the real estate indicated in the separate sheet between the Defendant and Nonparty C was concluded between the Defendant and Nonparty C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. After lending a number of money to Nonparty C on December 13, 2013, the Plaintiff collected a loan from Nonparty C at KRW 165 million and received a certificate of loan from Nonparty C.

B. On December 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C with the Daegu District Court 2014Gahap7128, which sought the payment of the said loan, and subsequently sentenced C to the Plaintiff to pay the amount of KRW 165 million and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from August 5, 2014 to the date of full payment. The said judgment became final and conclusive on January 27, 2015.

C. C, on February 7, 2014, entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant, one of whom he/she had owned, regarding the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in excess of his/her debt, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 30 million. On December 7, 2014, the Daegu District Court completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the future of the Defendant as the receipt of No. 25443, Dec. 7, 2014.

On February 11, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for a compulsory auction against the instant real estate as Daegu District Court D and rendered a judgment of compulsory commencement of auction. The instant real estate was sold on July 22, 2016, and on August 26, 2016, the maximum debt amount of KRW 30 million was distributed to the Defendant, who is a mortgagee, on the date of distribution, and the registration of the establishment of the said real estate under the name of the Defendant was revoked.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, C entered into a mortgage contract as above with the Defendant, who is one of the parties to the instant real estate in excess of the obligation, and the establishment registration of a mortgage in the future of the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act as an act of reducing the common liability property of ordinary creditors including the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary.

Therefore, the above contract to establish a mortgage which constitutes a fraudulent act is revoked, and the duty to restore is fulfilled.