1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claims modified by this court, shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiffs' claims are filed.

1. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding “A. B died on December 10, 2017, and the Plaintiff C succeeded to its property,” and thus, this part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment is identical to that of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The secured claim of the instant right to collateral security includes KRW 150 million against the Defendant J, because the Defendant, in addition to lending money to the Plaintiff, the Defendant agreed to additionally lend KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff (the expenses incurred in transferring the title of K's real estate that I promised to offer to the Plaintiff as security). Since the Defendant did not lend the said money to the Plaintiff and the conditions were not met, the part of the instant security agreement or at least KRW 150 million out of the said security agreement became null and void.

B. Of the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security, KRW 150 million against the Defendant of J is not the debt of the I, which is the debtor of the said right to collateral security, and thus, the establishment registration of the instant mortgage establishment with the debtor I is not effective.

C. Even if there is no additional loan agreement with the Defendant I, the instant mortgage contract was concluded by the Defendant’s deception that the amount of the secured debt should include the Defendant’s claim amount of KRW 150 million against J, and further loans KRW 200 million to I, so the Plaintiffs are revoked on the ground of deception.

Therefore, among the dividend table of this case, 150 million won out of the dividend amount to the defendant should be deleted, and the above amount should be distributed to the plaintiffs.

2. Determination

A. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs on the argument that the conditional mortgage contract is a conditional mortgage contract is sufficient to conclude the mortgage contract of this case with Plaintiff A and Defendant, and the Defendant additionally KRW 200 million with Plaintiff I.