1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Defendants in the judgment is modified as follows.

On July 15, 2013, between Defendants and A.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) at the end of the 9th judgment of the first instance court; (b) at the end of the 9th judgment of the first instance; (c) at the end of the 9th judgment of the second instance; (d) at the end of the 9th judgment of the second instance; (e) at the end of the 9th judgment of the second instance; (c) at the following end of the 2th paragraph; and (d) at the 10th 19th 19th ; and (c) at the following end: (c) at the end of the 10th 1th judgment of the first instance court, the following contents are added; and (d) at the same time, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is added

2. Additional parts

A. The second part of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance (in light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to deny that there is a high probability that the secured claim will be established in the near future solely on the grounds that the delinquency in payment of interest occurred after the conclusion of the instant sales contract, or the Plaintiff cancelled the existing provisional seizure on each of the instant real estate before the conclusion of the instant sales contract, as alleged by the Defendants, and that the second credit guarantee agreement of this case was concluded before the conclusion of the instant sales contract until the lapse

B. The fifth fifth part of the judgment of the court of first instance [this part is alleged to the effect that the Defendant cannot include expenses incurred in preserving claims against the preserved claims, but the scope of the right to indemnity of the entrusted guarantor is included in expenses that cannot be avoided (Articles 441(2) and 425(2) of the Civil Act), and barring special circumstances, the Defendants’ above assertion cannot be accepted]

C. According to each description of evidence Nos. 3 and 29-1 through 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of KRW 20,985,00 of the total debt amount per 480 million in factories and mining mortgage, which was established on December 30, 201 with respect to the land and the building on the land owned by the non-party company Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, the non-party company, as the mortgagee, the Bank of Korea, the maximum debt amount per 480,000, and KRW 20,985,000 in mining mortgage, against the plaintiff bank.