1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the allegations emphasized by the plaintiffs in this court, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Plaintiffs, based on the existence of a claim relationship between L, M, and Plaintiff A, concluded an agreement between L, G, and Plaintiff A, and formed an indivisible claim relationship between Plaintiff A and Plaintiff A.

In addition, Plaintiff B, who invested KRW 160 million through L, has been partially transferred the right to collateral security of this case, or the right to claim the return of L’s investment money, has been finally transferred to Plaintiff A and registered the creation of collateral security of this case in the name of Plaintiff A under a third party agreement, or has invested or invested in the real estate of this case through Plaintiff A and B through L. The above arguments are in conflict with each other, and thus it is difficult to trust them.

In other words, if L’s investment deposit return claim is transferred to M and again transferred to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is in the status of creditor, and only L and the Plaintiff cannot be in an indivisible relationship with the obligee, and there is no reason for the Plaintiff A, who has not any relationship with L to transfer part of the instant right to collateral security for the Plaintiff B through L, without any relationship with L to transfer part of the instant right to collateral security, and the Plaintiff A asserted that the Plaintiff finally acquired the claim and made an contradictory claim that Plaintiff A invested through L, and that it is inconsistent with the earlier and rear.

In addition, it is not clear in itself that the plaintiff A has an indivisible relationship with L due to any specific cause relationship, and it is a ground for registration to assert that the plaintiff A was a mortgagee by a three-party agreement without specific and clear arguments and proof about the cause relationship.