All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, based on the following circumstances, determined as follows: (a) each secured claim of the right to collateral security established by the Industrial Bank of Korea on each of the instant real estate is the claim to refund the lease deposit to the Defendant Industrial Bank of Korea against E or F; and (b) the amount is KRW 660 million in the balance of the deposit at the time the Industrial Bank of Korea submitted the claim registration statement; and (c) KRW 755,573,425 in compensation for delay; and (d) on the ground that the lease agreement between the Defendant Industrial Bank of Korea and F was explicitly renewed after September 27, 2005 and the Defendant Industrial Bank of Korea, and the due date became due until September 2012, the date of expiration of the statute of limitations has not yet elapsed by August 13, 2014, the Plaintiff’s claim on the Plaintiff’s claim and the completion of the statute of limitations.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the rules of evidence, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the completion

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the failure to establish a claim and the completion of extinctive prescription on the ground that, on February 16, 2012, Defendant A, setting a loan of KRW 350 million to G as interest rate of KRW 30 million at 30% per annum and on the premise that each of the instant real estate was completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 525 million with respect to each of the instant real estate for the security of the security, even if the extinctive prescription is applied to the said secured claim, the period of five years has not elapsed until the date of the preparation of the distribution schedule as of August 13,

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence and the misapprehension of legal principles on the completion

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed.