1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the supplementary intervenors are dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is that of the judgment of the court of second instance.

The Plaintiffs and the Intervenor’s assertion against Defendant E (as shown in the first instance judgment, from No. 5 to No. 6 below) are dismissed as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and as to the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor’s assertion against Defendant F and the Defendant G, the reasoning of the first instance judgment is stated, except for adding the judgment under paragraph (3) below. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On February 3, 2012, Plaintiff A, who borrowed KRW 100 million from L, agreed to repay KRW 200 million, with the loan of KRW 100 million. A, on the instant land, had established a right to collateral security of KRW 420 million with the maximum debt amount received on February 3, 2012, under Article 2595, but revoked the said right to collateral security with the repayment of KRW 150 million to L on November 14, 2013. The actual lessee of the remainder of KRW 50 million with the necessary documents received from Plaintiff A without permission from the Plaintiff, and established a right to collateral security of KRW 150 million with the same registry office prior to May 28, 2018, Defendant E established a right to collateral security of KRW 16844,00,000 with the same registry office prior to the receipt of the said right.

Therefore, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of Defendant E, which completed the supplementary registration, is null and void or is not so.

Even if the secured debt amount is only KRW 50,000,000 or KRW 3,432,068 of the remaining credit amount of I (the amount calculated by deducting KRW 150,000,000 from KRW 153,432,068, the total sum of principal and interest as of November 14, 2013, which was calculated by applying the rate of 30% per annum under the Interest Limitation Act as of November 14, 2013, from KRW 153,432,068).

3. The Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor are creditors (the Plaintiff’s Intervenor D) who have an executory exemplification against the Plaintiffs, who are the mortgagee of the right to collateral security that the Intervenor created each of the instant real estate on each of the instant real estate.