1. Defendant B shall list 1 B from the Plaintiff.

Of the real estate stated in paragraph (1), the indication of drawings in attached Form 2 1, 2, 3, 4, 1.

1. Following the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3, and 4.

On December 14, 2013, the Plaintiff’s list No. 1 B from D who represented Defendant B.

Of the real estate listed in the paragraph, the part (a) of the ship (102m2; hereinafter referred to as "102m2") which connects each point of the attached Form 2 drawings No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the real estate listed in the paragraph is about 30m2

B, the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million, and the period from December 28, 2013 to December 28, 2015 was determined and leased.

B. As stipulated in the above lease agreement, the Plaintiff paid 3 million won as the down payment on the date of conclusion of the lease agreement to Defendant B, and 27 million won as of December 27, 2013, and resided in from December 17, 2013 to 102.

C. The Plaintiff notified Defendant B of the return of the lease deposit from the end of 2015, the date of the expiration of the lease agreement with respect to 102.

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the claim against Defendant B, the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with respect to subparagraph 102 has expired on December 28, 2015. As such, Defendant B, the lessor, is obligated to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff in return for the delivery and redemption of subparagraph 102, which is the object of the lease, from the Plaintiff, as the lessee.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis concluded by Defendant B with Defendant C on May 12, 2016 should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the registration of establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis made in Defendant C on the same day must be revoked on the same day.

B. The issue of whether the act constitutes a fraudulent act subject to revocation of creditor’s right in a case where the debtor’s act of reducing liability property causes or deepens the shortage of common security for general creditors.