1. All appeals filed by the defendant and the defendant assistant intervenor are dismissed.

2. The portion resulting from the participation in the appeal costs.

1. Basic facts

A. While Plaintiff A was awarded a subcontract for the said construction work from the original contractor of D Maintenance Work (hereinafter “D Maintenance Work”), including the Sung Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction work”), the said construction work could not be executed since there was no license for the civil construction work. As such, Plaintiff A concluded a subcontract construction contract by lending the name of the Intervenor who participated in the Defendant’s supplementary construction work (former trade name: air construction company: hereinafter “the Intervenor”).

B. On July 13, 2009, the Intervenor entered into a mortgage agreement with the Plaintiff A and his spouse, with respect to the real estate indicated in the attached list in the name of the Plaintiff B (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in order to secure the claim for damages against the Intervenor, instead of lending the title as above, in order to secure the claim for damages against the Intervenor, who is the nominal lender, due to the error of the construction by the Plaintiff, instead of lending the title as above, the Intervenor entered into a mortgage agreement with the Plaintiff A as the obligor, and the 100 million

Accordingly, the Intervenor completed the registration of the creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) by the Daegu District Court No. 7397, which received the deputy branch support on the 14th of the same month.

C. On March 5, 2008, Plaintiff A lent the Intervenor’s name to enter into a construction contract, which is subcontracted to KRW 3,388,440,00 (including value-added tax) for the instant construction project from the friendliness industry, etc. and continued the construction project.

The Intervenor, from around 2008, had the provisional seizure of creditors, such as wages, equipment use expenses, etc. relating to the instant construction from around 2008, and had to suspend the instant construction work, as the Plaintiff delayed the construction schedule.

Accordingly, on July 28, 2010, the intervenor determined the construction cost as KRW 3,001,900,000 (including value-added tax) with regard to the chemical industry, etc. on the basis of the gender industry, etc., and settled the accounts accordingly. The intervenor received the said construction cost from the gender industry, etc. around that time.

E. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s real estate of this case.