1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasons for the conclusion of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case are as follows: (a) even if the Plaintiff lent KRW 500 million to D, Defendant B created a collateral security (the maximum amount of claims KRW 450 million) on June 9, 2008 and the collateral security (the maximum amount of claims KRW 800 million) on January 22, 2009, respectively, under the name of Defendant B, to secure the Plaintiff’s loan claims against D, even though the Plaintiff lent KRW 500 million to D, Defendant B did not have any evidence to acknowledge that the collateral security (the maximum amount of claims KRW 450 million) was established on January 12, 2009.

In addition to the above evidence, the defendant Eul additionally lent the above 350 million won to D with the above 30 million won as well as the above 747 billion won. Thus, each of the above mortgage merely appears to have been established to secure the loan claims arising or future against the defendant Eul at the time of the establishment of the above mortgage with respect to the defendant Eul. On the other hand, Eul merely lent 50 million won to D with the maximum debt amount of KRW 450 million, and F merely lent 10 million to D with the maximum debt amount of KRW 60 million, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 60 million was only lent to D. In light of the fact that each of the above mortgage claims against the defendant Eul were not included in the secured debt amount set out in E or F name, and there is no evidence that each of the above mortgage claims against the defendant Eul were purchased with respect to the above 100 million total debt amount of KRW 100 million from each of the above 1301 to 1617.17.

Thus, the plaintiff's secured debt of each of the above secured claims under the name of the defendant B is against D.