1. The defendant succeeding intervenor's appeal against the plaintiffs is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant succeeding intervenor.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff B (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the registration of establishment of a collateral security with respect to the real estate (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) was completed on December 10, 2009 by the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western District Court’s Seodaemun-gu Office of Registry No. 44699, Dec. 10, 2009, the maximum debt amount of KRW 90 million, the debtor A, the Defendant A, and the Defendant C (hereinafter

B. On July 18, 2013, the Defendant transferred the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security to the Intervenor succeeding to the Defendant, and notified the Plaintiff A of the transfer, and then transferred the said right to the Intervenor succeeding to the Defendant on July 24, 2013.

【Fact-finding, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments without any dispute

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. Since the Plaintiffs did not borrow money from the Defendant, the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor could not acquire the claim against the Plaintiff under a contract on the assignment of claims with the Defendant, and therefore, the instant right to collateral held against the Plaintiff by the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor as the secured claim is null and void due to its subsidiary nature, and thus, the above right to collateral creation should be cancelled. Accordingly, the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor leased the Plaintiff’s KRW 60 million to the Defendant at the time of the establishment registration of the instant right to collateral, and the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor claimed to the effect that the instant right to collateral security was valid, since the Defendant’s right to collateral security was established under the name of the Defendant, which is its own property, to secure this.

B. In light of the existence of the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor, which is the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security, as seen above, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff did not borrow money from the Defendant, and thus the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor cannot acquire the loan refund claim against the Plaintiff, notwithstanding the assignment contract between the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor and the Defendant.