1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is reasonable, and it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The plaintiff also in this court, i.e., the following circumstances: (i) the debtor C was in a bankruptcy state since 1997; (ii) the defendant, the beneficiary, has been in a transaction relationship with C for ten years; (iii) there is no doubt that C had been in a state of excess of the obligation; (iv) it is contrary to the rule of experience to believe that C had sufficient repayment of all obligations; and (iii) it is against the rule of experience to believe that C had sufficient repayment of all obligations; (iv) it cannot be deemed that the defendant, while the defendant did not recover the existing claim against C from J, was believed that C had sufficient financial capacity; and (iv) it was sufficiently established as soon as the loan of the Fund was created immediately, unlike other collateral; and (v) it appears that there was a high possibility that the defendant could not recover loans from other creditors if the defendant did not secure preferential payment right, it would be more than 160 million won in bad faith than that of the beneficiary; and (v) it appears that the defendant did not have more than the maximum debt amount of G-mortgage (the maximum debt amount of this case).

However, as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant transferred the amount of KRW 100 million (97 million after deducting interest from interest of KRW 30% per month) to C via K, a third party, as shown in the judgment of the court of first instance, on February 28, 2014. In light of the fact that the registration of creation of the instant mortgage was completed in the future of the Defendant.