1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part pertaining to the participation of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor is the Intervenor.

1. Basic facts

A. The debtor A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “debtor A”) becomes the administrator upon the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, as seen below, as the representative director B of the debtor company, and became the plaintiff in this case.

In the lower court, the plaintiff is not specifically distinguishable from the legal status.

In common with D on May 3, 2018, the case was concluded after the decision of recommending reconciliation was finalized on May 4, 2020 with the purport that the Plaintiff withdraws the instant lawsuit against D.

From March 31, 2019, the interest rate was 2% per month, and the due date was 400 million won.

In order to secure the above loan obligation on the same day, the debtor company completed the registration of establishment of a collateral security holder D and the maximum debt amount of KRW 520,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of establishment of a collateral security holder") with respect to the attached real estate owned by the debtor company (hereinafter referred to as the "the instant real estate"), which is a contract establishing the grounds for registration on the same day.

B. On November 14, 2018, the debtor company completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 630,000,000 (hereinafter “the second establishment of a mortgage”) that the mortgagee of the instant real estate and the mortgagee of the instant real estate constituted a contract establishing the grounds for registration as of November 12, 2018.

C. On December 7, 2018, the debtor company filed an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures with the Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2018 Gohap100265, and the decision was rendered on December 20, 2018, and the plaintiff became the administrator of the debtor company.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 8 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1 through 3, and all pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the debtor company caused the shortage or loss of joint collateral through the registration of the establishment of the second place of neighboring mortgage, and thus, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage was put in insolvent pursuant to Article 100(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”).