1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning Plaintiff B is modified as follows.

The defendant is the plaintiff corporation.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 31, 2007, the Daegu District Court received a permanent resident registration office of the Daegu District Court on the instant real estate No. 24025, Dec. 31, 2007, which was owned by the Plaintiff A, as the grounds for registration, the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the right to collateral security”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 200,000,000, and the debtor A and the mortgagee A as the defendant of the instant real estate (hereinafter “the right to collateral security”).

B. On December 31, 2007, as to the instant 2 real estate owned by the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”), the establishment registration of the instant 2 real estate was completed on December 31, 2007, with the amount of KRW 400,000,000 of the maximum debt amount, as the grounds for registration on December 28, 2007, under Article 12704, which was received by the Dobong District Court’s receipt office, and the contract to establish a contract on December 28, 2007, and the joint collateral mortgage (hereinafter “the instant 2-mortgage”) that became the Defendant of the Plaintiff Company, the registration was completed on March 9, 2010.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the grounds for recognition】; Eul's entries in the evidence 18-1 to 3; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff Gap's attorney is an unauthorized representative, because the plaintiff Gap's attorney failed to obtain the power of attorney from the above plaintiff. However, according to the plaintiff Gap's statement made at the 10th day for pleading of the first instance court, it can be recognized that the plaintiff Gap granted the power of attorney of this case to his/her attorney. Thus, the defendant's main defense of this safety is without merit.

B. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff A’s lawsuit against this conclusion is unlawful, since the plaintiff agreed to withdraw the part filed by the plaintiff A among the lawsuit in this case.

On August 26, 2011, according to the evidence No. 34, according to the defendant's argument, the plaintiff A provided the plaintiffs with the security against the amount borrowed by the defendant's 'Out-of-the-counter E' on August 26, 201.