1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

1. The reasons why this court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are as follows: “Defendant B” as “B; “Defendant C” as “Defendant”; and it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the reason why “Defendant C” as “Defendant”. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Assertion and determination

A. The summary of the cause of the claim 1) The Defendant sold Y land acquired according to the exchange contract with Q to B, and B transferred the purchase price claim amounting to KRW 1.5 million against the Plaintiff to the Defendant, thereby extinguishing the Defendant’s obligation to B. The Defendant’s obligation to the Defendant was created each of the instant collateral security claims even though Q agreed to receive KRW 670 million out of the purchase price of the land located in AX and set up separate real estate, the Defendant’s claim for the purchase price was extinguished, and each of the said collateral security claims was null and void due to the absence of the secured obligation. (2) The Defendant demanded each of the instant collateral security claims to B even with well-known knowledge that B sold the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and received the intermediate payment. As long as the Defendant actively participated in the act of breach of trust in B, each of the instant collateral security claims is null and void as a anti-social juristic act.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff, the buyer of each real estate of this case, seeks the cancellation of each of the above collateral security rights to the Defendant on behalf of the seller, on behalf of the seller, on the ground that the existence of the collateral obligation is null and void. (B) Various circumstances, namely, ① transfer the Plaintiff’s purchase price claim amounting to KRW 1 billion to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s joint and several liability for the payment of the above purchase price amount to the Defendant is difficult, and ② the Defendant sold the land AX to a third party according to the exchange contract with Q.