1. The contract to establish a right to collateral security concluded on January 21, 2008 between the defendant and C concerning the real estate stated in the attached list.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff loaned C totaling KRW 175,761,200 from July 12, 2005 to September 30, 2005, and received a partial repayment of principal and interest until December 20, 207, and had a loan claim of KRW 134,440,659 (principal) with respect to C as of January 21, 2008.

After that, the Plaintiff received partial repayment of principal and interest from C until November 1, 2010, and has a loan claim of KRW 82,024,677 as of the same day (principal).

B. On January 21, 2008, the Defendant lent KRW 80 million to C, and entered into a mortgage agreement with C as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by C (hereinafter “instant real estate”), which is KRW 90 million with the mortgagee, the Defendant, C, and the maximum debt amount (hereinafter “instant mortgage agreement”).

As a result, C completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case”) of the same content as the mortgage contract of this case by the Suwon District Court, Sung-nam Branch, Gwangju Branch Office of 4386 on January 23, 2008.

C. At the time of the instant mortgage contract, C was in excess of the obligation.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3-4, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the judgment, where the obligor’s property is insufficient to repay the entire obligation, and where the obligor provided the obligor’s property to a certain obligee as payment in kind or as a collateral, barring any special circumstance, it would directly harm the interests of other obligees and thus, constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other obligees. The same applies to cases where the obligor’s property provided as payment in kind or as a collateral is not the obligor’s property, or its value falls

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da18218, Jul. 12, 2007).