1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 5th to 6th of the first instance judgment shall be followed by the following:

In an auction procedure under the Civil Execution Act, if the debtor is the same as the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security is merely the meaning of the creditor entitled to receive dividends or the third acquisitor of the real estate for the purpose of collateral security pursuant to Article 148 of the Civil Execution Act, and it cannot be viewed as the so-called limitation of liability that only claims within the maximum debt amount can be satisfied with respect to such real estate. Thus, if the amount of the claim of the mortgagee exceeds the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security unless there is a creditor entitled to receive dividends or a third acquisitor pursuant to Article 148 of the Civil Execution Act, even if there is an amount exceeding the maximum debt

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da4001 Decided February 26, 2009. A. According to the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 6, and the whole purport of the pleadings, plaintiff A created a collateral security to secure a loan to a national bank of the Republic of Korea as an owner who owns one-half share of the real estate of this case. The first and third loans secured by the said collateral security exceed the maximum debt amount; during the distribution procedure, new card company, national bank, stock company, and KB National Card, which are creditors entitled to receive dividends pursuant to Article 148 of the Civil Execution Act, was distributed to the total amount of claims reported; the amount of claims reported may be distributed to the plaintiff A who was the owner of the real estate of this case.