The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing this case, is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court either saw it as follows or added additional judgments as set forth in paragraph (2). Thus, this shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The second-class 8 to 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.

“A. The Plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement with C on July 20, 2006, and on July 21, 2006, the following day, the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by C (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

2) As to the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of which the maximum debt amount is KRW 396,00,000 (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of this case”)

.The second to third parties are as follows, the second to third parties of the judgment of the first instance have been completed.

"C. At the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the market price of the instant apartment was equivalent to KRW 294 million, but the instant apartment was already equivalent to the maximum debt amount of KRW 396,00,00 (270,000,000,00 (29,000,000,000 won of the loan principal of the corporate driving general fund (E) as of October 19, 201) and the interest rate of KRW 49,351,825, which was incurred until October 19, 2014) of the instant apartment was completed, and each registration of the attachment was completed under the name of the National Health Insurance Corporation and the Goyang-gu, Yongsan-gu and the National Health Insurance Corporation. Since C had no particular active property except the instant apartment, C had been in excess of its debt amount."

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the market price of the apartment of this case at the time of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring apartment of this case reaches KRW 475 million, and that the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security of this case merely exceeds KRW 396 million, and that C did not have any debt excess.

On the other hand, the issue of whether the debtor's act of disposal of property constitutes a fraudulent act should be determined at the time of disposal, so it is necessary to determine whether the act of disposal of property is a fraudulent act.