1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant G in the judgment of the court of first instance as follows.

The plaintiff is the defendant.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance, except for the case being cited or added as provided in paragraph (2). Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As follows, the 15th 14-17 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be added to the parts used or added.

Seoul Guarantee Insurance paid KRW 956,60,000 to the Plaintiff on January 5, 2016 on the ground of the occurrence of an insured event under a license insurance contract, and demanded the Plaintiff to pay the principal amounting to KRW 959,969,030 (i.e., principal amounting to KRW 956,60,000,000 for delay damages amounting to KRW 2,358,730) on January 20, 2016.

24 pages 11 to 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.

On February 24, 2014, the Tong Young-si demanded the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. to pay KRW 956,60,000,00 for insurance money under the instant guaranty insurance policy. On January 5, 2016, the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. paid KRW 956,60,000 for the occurrence of an insured event stipulated in the guaranty insurance contract, and on January 20, 2016, it demanded the Plaintiff to pay KRW 959,969,030 for the principal amount of KRW 956,60,00 for delay damages of KRW 2,358,730 for the principal amount of KRW 956,60,00 for delay damages of KRW 2,350,730 for the legal measure cost of KRW 1,010,30 for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is obligated to compensate for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff.

The following shall be added to the third 32 pages 16 of the first instance judgment:

Defendant E asserts that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage on January 28, 2015 under the name of the Defendant was to secure 90,000,000 won out of the secured debt of the establishment registration of a mortgage on July 10, 2012, which was not repaid, and is merely a modified object of the right to collateral security on July 10, 2012, and should be legally effective and protected. However, there is no evidence supporting the above assertion, and solely on the basis thereof, it cannot be deemed that the creation of a collateral security does not constitute a fraudulent act.