1. The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

A. The Daegu District Court's Sung Branch C voluntary auction of real estate

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. On October 17, 2016, the Plaintiff’s assertion was made under the Defendant’s right to collateral security against D with the Defendant’s claim against D, and the Defendant had a claim against D.

As can not be seen, the agreement to establish a right to collateral security between the Defendant and D on October 12, 2016 is null and void as a false representation. Even if the secured claim of the right to collateral security on October 17, 2016 was against the Defendant’s F and G, the amount of dividends to the Defendant in the instant dividend statement should be deleted, since there is no legal act establishing the secured right or constitutes a false declaration of agreement, even if it constitutes a claim against the Defendant’s F and G.

Even if the secured claim against the right to collateral security becomes effective on October 17, 2016, the Defendant’s finalized amount of the secured claim is KRW 130 million, and the Defendant is a person who has received dividends of KRW 51,513,00,03 from the voluntary auction of real estate held by G with respect to the same claim. As such, the remaining amount of the secured claim is maximum of KRW 78,486,97 (=130 million - 51,513,003) in the dividend table of this case, the Defendant’s dividends against the Defendant should be corrected and distributed to the Plaintiff.

B. In light of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security on October 17, 2016 in the name of the Defendant, with the consent of D, the water-based guarantor, to secure the loan claims against F and G, so the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

Preliminaryly, D bears a joint and several obligation or partnership obligation in relation to F and G’s loan obligations against the Defendant, or concurrently takes over the above loan obligations. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is justified.