1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants in excess of the money ordered to be paid under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the statement in paragraph (1) of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, citing it by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The Defendants’ determination as to the main defense against the main defense against the aforementioned real estate delivery order and the defense of the amount equivalent to the attorney’s fees paid for the filing of an objection against the provisional seizure against claims, are asserted to the effect that, as part of the litigation costs, seeking a separate claim for damages against the attorney’s fees, which can be repaid through the procedure for determining the amount of litigation costs, is unlawful as there is no legal interest. However, this part of the lawsuit is not against the other party to the above real estate delivery order application case and the objection against the provisional seizure against the above real estate delivery order case, but is not against the other party to the claim, it is apparent in the record that the aforementioned lawsuit is sought as part of the tort liability claim against the person who committed an unlawful act, such as the alteration of the certificate of waiver of the right of retention and the unlawful use of the present continuing guarantee certificate, and whether the above attorney’s fees fall under the scope of damages that

3. According to the facts of the recognition of the above liability for damages, Defendant B, as the head of the F branch of Defendant us Bank, altered the certificate of waiver of this case's right of retention, transferred it to the Credit Management Department of Defendant us Bank to the auction court, and had its employees submit the altered certificate of waiver of right of retention to the auction court. Defendant B, as the head of the F branch of the Defendant us Bank, transferred the instant certificate of waiver of right of retention prepared by the Plaintiffs to the above Credit Management Department, and had Defendant us Bank transfer the guarantee bond against the Plaintiffs to the above Credit Management Department, so it was against its original purpose of use.