1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) addition to the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, following the second part of the judgment; and (b) addition to the addition of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the new argument made by the Defendants in the trial under Paragraph (2), the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance

[A] Furthermore, Defendant B entered into a contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis with the Plaintiff on November 5, 2014. At that time, K had arbitrarily occupied the instant funeral hall and could not obtain a delivery of the instant funeral hall from the Plaintiff and used it normally, and did not demand the Plaintiff to deliver the instant funeral hall according to the contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis. (1) Defendant B asserted to the effect that, at the time of the establishment of the instant right to lease on a deposit basis, the instant funeral hall was established with a claim amounting to its value, and there was no reason to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis with the object of collateral. However, according to the written evidence No. 1 through No. 3 and No. 24, the Plaintiff including the instant funeral hall, and the land acquired through a voluntary auction procedure on July 31, 2014, the total appraised value of which was equivalent to KRW 5.1 billion, and there was no reason to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis at the time of establishment of the instant right to lease on a deposit.

2. Additional determination as to the Defendants’ assertion

A. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion is the case from January 7, 2015 to the point of view.