1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 7, 1999, F divided the instant land into 860 square meters, Gangwon-do, Yangyang-gun C prior to Yangyang-gun C (hereinafter “instant land”) into 49 square meters and 361 square meters prior to H on May 26, 2008, in order to operate the telecom, etc., and on the same day, C was converted into the land category on the same day.

B. At the time, on the ground of the instant land, the construction of the 7th floor building for accommodation facilities and neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) was underway.

B. On March 14, 200, the Defendant: (a) donated the instant land from F, a spouse, to run accommodation business, etc. in the instant building; (b) but (c) as a result, the new construction cost of the instant building was insufficient; (d) requested the Plaintiff and D, etc. to lend construction funds.

C. On September 8, 200, the Plaintiff and D completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (the maximum debt amount of the Plaintiff’s 160,000,000,000 won, and the maximum debt amount of D’s 528,00,000 won) on the instant land, and lent the construction fund to the Defendant over several occasions.

On February 22, 2002, the defendant confirmed that, until then between the plaintiff and D, the loans that the defendant must pay to the plaintiff and D are KRW 750,00,000,00, and upon the completion of the building of this case as a security for the above loans, the defendant agreed to establish the right to collateral security in the name of the plaintiff and D (hereinafter the "right to collateral security contract of this case"), the face value of which is KRW 750,000,000, and the due date for payment, set up a promissory note on August 30, 202 and delivered it to the plaintiff and D.

(hereinafter referred to as "the Promissory Notes of this case". (e)

However, although the construction of the building of this case was completed, the Defendant did not complete the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage pursuant to the mortgage contract of this case to the Plaintiff and D, the Plaintiff and D filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on April 19, 2003 to seek the implementation of the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage (Seoul District Court 2003Gahap3511) and received a favorable judgment by public notice on November 26, 2003. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and D rendered a favorable judgment on December 27, 2003.