1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The following facts in the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be admitted as a whole to the entries in Gap evidence 2-1, 2, 4, and 8-1 to 10.

On September 15, 2009, the Plaintiffs borrowed KRW 400 million from the Defendant as of November 15, 2009 (hereinafter “the instant loan”). In order to secure the said loan obligation, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over KRW 400 million with respect to the D Apartment-gu 102 502 Dong-dong, Gwangjubuk-gu, Seoul, and the store and housing of KRW 331 square meters and the second floor thereof, F large 33 square meters and the single-story (hereinafter “each of the instant real property”).

B. On March 26, 2010, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on each of the instant real estate was cancelled due to the termination on March 24, 2010 and partial renunciation.

C. On August 24, 2010, the Defendant completed provisional attachment registration on the real estate owned by the Plaintiffs, including each of the instant real estate, by setting the instant loan claim as the preserved right, but the provisional attachment registration was revoked on December 9, 2010.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On March 26, 2010, the Plaintiff’s actual creditor of the instant loan was not the Defendant, and the Plaintiffs agreed to receive KRW 2,973 square meters and all business rights, including the land and buildings, owned by H (hereinafter “H”) from G designated by J on March 26, 2010, as KRW 6.5 billion, part of the price is the Plaintiff’s debt 4 billion against H’s National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives, and the Plaintiff’s debt 2.131 billion, including the instant loan debt. The Plaintiffs agreed to receive only the remainder of KRW 369 million.

Therefore, although the debt of this case was terminated by the above corporate transfer and takeover contract, the defendant used the original loan certificate which was not returned to the plaintiffs.