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 reasons for this part of the basic facts are as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. On October 2, 1997, the plaintiff's assertion D completed the registration of creation of a mortgage of this case under the name of Dong E's own Dong H on April 12, 1997, before the occurrence of a credit guarantee accident due to the party branch road on October 2, 1997, and the name of defendant B, which is the branch of D on September 30, 1997, under the name of Dong E, and the name of defendant B, which is the branch of D on September 30, 1997. This is null and void as D without the secured debt, in collusion with his wife and her branch for the purpose of evading compulsory execution from the plaintiff. The registration of establishment of a mortgage of the defendant A, which

Even if not, since the secured debt has expired ten years after the date of registration of each of the instant mortgages, the establishment registration of each of the instant mortgages is null and void.

Therefore, since the part of the above distribution schedule against the Defendants is unfair, the amount of dividends to the Defendants should be deleted and distributed to the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant B’s assertion was sold as security his own land while investing capital in Company I operated by Company D and working for Company I, and Defendant B made it available for Company I by creating the Nongng Nonghyup Myp Loan Account under his own name, and set up a collateral security right to secure the said money and the money invested in Company I.

H worked as a director of Company I, while lending KRW 49,00,000 to Company I at the request of Company D, and there was KRW 21,00,000 for unpaid benefits. However, the said sum was set up a collateral security to secure KRW 70,00,000.

And since D recognizes the obligations against the Defendants, the Plaintiff cannot invoke the completion of the statute of limitations by subrogation of D.

3. First of all, the judgment is based on non-existence of secured claim or misrepresentation.