1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following modifications.

[Revision] The part concerning the registration of creation of a mortgage of each maximum debt amount of December 7, 2005, the maximum debt amount of February 7, 2012, and the registration of creation of a mortgage of 520 million won as of February 7, 2012, shall be as follows.

The following statements are added after the judgment of the first instance court No. 8 of the Seoul Eastern District Court, which was completed as No. 106530, Dec. 7, 2005; the registration of the establishment of a neighboring maximum debt amount of KRW 585 million; and the registration of the establishment of a neighboring maximum debt amount of KRW 520,000,000,000, which was completed as No. 5874, Feb. 7, 2012.

"The plaintiff (the plaintiff) may claim a loan as the claim in this case.

However, according to the interpretation of the loan certificate of this case as seen earlier, it cannot be viewed as a monetary loan contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted.

(1) The part of the first instance judgment No. 9 of the first instance court’s decision No. 14 of the same Act is as follows.

Since there is a benefit, it can be repaid against the plaintiff's will (as a result, the defendants subrogate the non-party clan as a matter of course pursuant to Article 481 of the Civil Code, and it cannot be deemed that it violates Article 449 (2) of the Civil Code on the limitation of transfer of claims, such as the plaintiff'

(1) remove the statements of the first instance court No. 1-4 of the Decision and add the following statements to the first instance court's first instance court's second instance judgment:

As to this, the Plaintiff exempted the Plaintiff from the duty to cancel the registration of the second place of the establishment in lieu of acquiring ownership of the instant real estate before the Defendants fully paid the purchase and sale balance at the time of drawing up the loan certificate.