1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. It was concluded on December 26, 2017 between Defendant C Co. and D.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 15, 2009, the Plaintiff, D, and E drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with the content that a notary public lends KRW 800 million to D and E without interest, and that on January 20, 2010, the Plaintiff repaid KRW 300 million each on January 20, 201 and January 20, 2012.

B.D completed the registration of ownership transfer on each real estate listed in the separate sheet on May 29, 2017.

C. On September 25, 2017, D concluded a mortgage agreement with Defendant B regarding each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter “mortgage agreement”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 70 million. On November 30, 2011 of the same year, B concluded a mortgage agreement with Cheongju District Court No. 24648 (hereinafter “mortgage No. 1”) and completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage pursuant to the instant mortgage agreement (hereinafter “mortgage No. 1”) or the instant mortgage creation agreement.

D On December 26, 2017, Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) concluded a mortgage agreement with a maximum debt amount of KRW 60 million with respect to each real estate indicated in the separate sheet as indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant mortgage agreement”). On December 27, 201, the registration of creation of mortgage pursuant to the instant mortgage agreement (hereinafter “instant two collateral security agreement”) was completed pursuant to Article 26593, which was received from the Cheongju District Court’s receipt of the Cheongju District Court’s receipt of the Cheongju District Court’s mortgage registration office (hereinafter “instant two collateral security agreement”) or the instant two collateral security agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Defendant C filed the instant lawsuit after one year has elapsed since the Plaintiff knew of the fact at the time of concluding the instant secondary mortgage contract. As such, Defendant C asserted that the part against Defendant C among the instant lawsuit is unlawful on the ground of its exclusion period, however, the Plaintiff’s conclusion of the instant secondary mortgage contract.