The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gu Government District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendant on October 28, 2015 (hereinafter “instant first mortgage agreement”) with respect to the instant real estate in order to secure the Defendant’s claim for unclaimed amount against B from around December 2010; and (b) concluded a mortgage agreement with the Plaintiff to supply the pertinent real estate as KRW 630,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant first mortgage agreement”); (c) concluded a mortgage agreement on October 30, 2015; and (d) concluded a mortgage agreement on January 13, 2016; and (b) concluded a mortgage agreement with the Plaintiff on April 20, 2016 with the settlement amount as KRW 80,00,000,000; and (d) concluded the mortgage agreement on April 21, 2016 to supply the pertinent real estate as feed ingredients as KRW 800,000,000.

Then, the lower court determined as follows: (a) from January 16, 2016, immediately after the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the second neighboring mortgage of this case, the Defendant continuously supplied goods to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. in the absence of the additional mortgage establishment for three months since the completion of the registration of the establishment of the second neighboring mortgage of this case from January 16, 2016; (b) in particular, the Defendant did not verify the details of supply of first priority, etc. to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. after April 22, 2016; and (c) rather, the Defendant asserts that the second neighboring mortgage contract of this case covers all obligations, including the amount of outstanding debt, within the scope of the maximum debt amount. The evidence submitted alone is sufficient.