The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant supplementary intervenor.

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

1. The reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted reveal the following facts.

With respect to the instant real estate owned by E, the provisional attachment registration in the name of G and H was completed on May 11, 2010, and on November 14, 2011, the registration of the creation of the instant right to collateral security was completed in the name of the Intervenor joining the Defendant, and on January 12, 2012, the registration of provisional attachment was completed in the name of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiff and 33 others”).

On the other hand, on February 15, 2012 regarding the instant right to collateral security, the registration of transfer of the instant right to collateral security was completed against the Defendant on the ground of transfer of contract.

B. On March 21, 2012, the Defendant filed a request for auction to the Seoul Southern District Court D with respect to the instant real estate based on the instant collateral security (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”), and filed a request for auction to the Seoul Southern District Court I regarding the instant real estate on March 22, 2012 (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”), G, and H filed a request for auction on March 22, 2012.

C. In the instant auction procedure, the auction court opened a date of distribution on March 5, 2013, and prepared the instant distribution schedule with the content of allocating KRW 77,338,080 to G, who is the person holding the right to provisional seizure and the right to demand distribution, KRW 21,979,218 to H, and KRW 426,105,731 to the Defendant, who is the applicant creditor and the right to demand distribution, respectively.

After the establishment of the instant right to collateral security, the Plaintiff et al. and 33 others, who completed the registration of provisional seizure, did not receive any distribution in the instant auction procedure.

2. Based on the above factual basis, the lower court acknowledged that the transfer of the instant mortgage and the secured debt to the Defendant by the Intervenor to the Defendant was null and void by means of false conspiracy, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and then, the Defendant’s mortgage of this case.