1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as follows, except for the modification as to the part concerning the correction of the trial as stated in paragraph (2) below, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 7 prior to the correction of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, at the location of the correction of the trial, on the 7th to 8th day of the judgment of the court of first instance, he prepared a loan certificate with the purport of borrowing KRW 150 million from the plaintiff on July 8, 1992 as of October 7, 1992. The plaintiff demanded the plaintiff to repay a loan amount of KRW 150 million to H on February 4, 1993, and provided as a security, it is recognized that he sent a letter of credit verifying that the plaintiff would proceed with an auction on the 20 million loan amount of KRW 150 million and KRW 939 square meters, G 403 square meters, Si forest 2,281 square meters (the agreement between H and the plaintiff had been reached between May 25, 199).

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this). As seen earlier, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security with the debtor H as to the real estate, etc. owned by E on July 8, 1992, wherein the debtor is the person who is the right to collateral security as the plaintiff, the person who is the right to collateral security as the plaintiff, and the maximum amount of the claim is KRW 150 million, and the Defendant received the attachment order of this case regarding the secured claim registered as the right to collateral security. In light of the date of establishment of the right to collateral security and the date of preparation of the above loan certificate, the maximum amount of the claim, etc., it is reasonable to view the secured claim as the Plaintiff’s secured right to collateral

After revision, comprehensively taking account of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, and 7-1, 7-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to view that the amount of the entire claim against the Plaintiff under the assignment order of this case is limited to the claim for refund of KRW 150 million with the principal of the loan that the Plaintiff owned against H.

① H on July 8, 1992, 150 million won from the Plaintiff.