The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, this part of the ground of appeal argues that the court below's fact-finding on the establishment of the secured claim against B is erroneous.

The acknowledgement of facts and the cooking and evaluation of evidence, which form the basis thereof, are within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless they exceed the limit of the free evaluation of evidence.

In examining the record, there is no reason to believe that the fact-finding by the court below exceeded the scope of reasonable free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules.

In addition, the judgment of the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the burden of proof of existence of collateral security or the admissibility and probative value of the document.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, where part of the real estate on which the joint mortgage is established is owned by the debtor, and part of the real estate is owned by the surety, if the auction price of each of the above real estate is distributed at the same time, Article 368(1) of the Civil Act does not apply, and where the auction price of the real estate owned by the debtor is distributed preferentially from the auction price of the real estate owned by the joint mortgagee

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da41475 Decided April 15, 2010). This also applies where a person who has pledged his/her property to secure another’s property serves as a joint and several surety for the debtor.

The court below paid out of the auction price of D's shares among each real estate of this case to the Defendant, who is the first secured mortgage holder, the first secured credit union and the second secured mortgage holder, respectively, and additionally paid out of the auction price of B's shares, which are the secured debt amount among the secured debt amount under the name of the Defendant.