1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons why the court has used for this case for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are set forth in Section 2-A of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The second sentence of Paragraph 2 is null and void, and even if there exists a valid secured claim, the claim is extinguished by the completion of prescription since it was not exercised for 10 years from April 2001, which is the time of its establishment, and the claim is extinguished by the completion of prescription. The first instance court's reasoning is stated, except that the first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's second sentence 12 to 5th sentence is used as follows. Thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

(1) The court below held that: (a) the Defendant made the establishment registration of the instant neighborhood in order to secure G’s loan claims; and (b) the Defendant’s repayment of the loan amounting to KRW 50 million between the Defendant, G, and F is consistent with the Defendant’s argument that there was an explicit or implied agreement to cancel the Defendant’s right to collateral security when the Defendant paid the loan amounting to KRW 50 million to the Defendant or G; and (c) the Defendant’s assertion that some of the testimonys of the Defendant’s witness G and witness F of the court of first instance and the first instance, which were newly submitted in the trial, were considered to have been considered to have been partially supplemented in the trial; and (d) the statement of the evidence as referred to in subparagraphs 1 through 11, which is the evidence newly submitted in the trial, and the testimony of the witness F of the court of first instance, was not trusted; and (e) the statement of the evidence as referred to in subparagraphs 1 through 11, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Rather, the following circumstances acknowledged by the testimony of Gap evidence 5-1, 2, and Eul evidence 1-5 and the witness F of the trial court, i.e., the defendant's lending of money without any interest agreement on the loan as a sale of G, is difficult to believe that the defendant, as a result of the sale of G, demanded new collateral, and further, the debtor's G property.