The judgment below

According to the reasoning of the court below, in full view of the facts and circumstances as stated in its reasoning after compiling the adopted evidence, and comprehensively taking into account these facts and circumstances, it agreed between the plaintiffs and the defendants to use the part corresponding to excess compensation of each of the collateral value of each of the housing of this case, and the plaintiffs agreed to complete the registration of establishment of a mortgage on each of the housing of this case to the non-party company designated by the non-party company. After that, the non-party company borrowed funds from the defendants and agreed to complete the registration of establishment of a mortgage on each of the housing of this case which can be used as a security pursuant to the above agreement with the defendants. Accordingly, the court below determined that the agreement between the plaintiffs and the non-party company and the defendants was valid, regardless of whether the plaintiffs knew of the specific facts about the loans to the non-party company of this case, since the agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants was made to establish a mortgage mortgage agreement between the defendants and the defendants, and thus, each of the collateral security obligations of this case was established.

However, the secured debt of the establishment registration of each of the preceding units of the instant case is borrowed from the Defendants of the non-party company.