All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 through 5, even if a debtor provided a security to a specific creditor in the event of insolvency, this would have been conducted simultaneously with a new loan, and a reasonable balance between the loan and the price of the mortgaged object may be acknowledged. Thus, if the debtor does not cause concerns over the disposition detrimental to the bankruptcy creditor, such act of offering security cannot be deemed an act detrimental to the bankruptcy creditor, and it does not constitute an act that can be denied pursuant to each subparagraph of Article 391 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.

The court below held that the act of creation of the security interest of this case was not aimed at securing the existing obligation of the debtor A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”), but was exchanged at the same time with borrowing funds to promote the continuation of business without being subject to business suspension, etc. from the Financial Supervisory Service, and the loan was useful for other purposes or possible to be seized, and thus the joint security interest of the bankruptcy creditor was reduced.

The act of creating a security interest in this case constitutes an act detrimental to bankruptcy creditors on the grounds that the act of creating a security interest cannot be deemed to cause damage to bankruptcy creditors.

or at the time determined that A cannot be concluded to have recognized such a result.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by

In addition, the court below's decision that the act of creating the security interest does not constitute an act detrimental to the bankruptcy creditors does not constitute an act of setting up the security interest in this case as well as an intentional father.