beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases: therefore, it shall accept this case in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The phrase “instant modification” in Part 6 under the fourth Schedule to the Judgment of the first instance court shall be deemed to read “instant modification agreement”.
The 6th judgment of the first instance court shall be in accordance with the following subparagraphs from 11 to 21.
“3) The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) managed the instant loan Nos. 3 as “mortgage loan” while managing the instant loan Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 as “credit loan” and applying the loan interest rate higher than the instant loan No. 3, the instant loan Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 should not be included in the scope of the secured claim of each of the instant mortgage claims, and that it is unlawful for the Defendant and the Plaintiff to whom each of the loans was repaid by deceiving the Defendant and the Plaintiff to be included in the scope of the secured claim.
According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the loan No. 3 of this case is indicated as the "full-sum mixture" column in the table of credit transaction status (Evidence No. 1-1) in the intervenor's internal document No. 4, but the loan No. 1 of this case is indicated as the "full-sum Credit", the loan No. 2, 4, and 5 of this case is indicated as the "full-sum Credit", and the loan No. 6 of this case is indicated as the "responding", and the loan No. 1 of this case is applied with higher interest rates than the loan No. 3 of this case as to the first,2, 4, and 5 of this case, which are written as part of credit or full-time credit, and each of the security status table (Evidence No. 4, 5, and 6 of evidence No. 4-1 of this case) of the intervenor's preparation as well as the "special security status" column No. 4-5, 2600.