1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be respectively.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the third party’s “ July 3, 2013.” among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be “ September 30, 2013.” (b) and (c) the third party’s “ September 30, 2013.” and (d) except for the following changes, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as indicated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, thereby citing it as it is.

2. Part III, written by the Plaintiff, established legal superficies in the event of auction on the mortgaged real estate in the name of the Plaintiff, and considering this, the secured real estate in this case is not adequate for value as a collateral. However, since the secured real estate in this case and the buildings above the real estate in this case were jointly mortgaged with the Gwangju Bank as a mortgagee, joint mortgages by the Bank of Gwangju is established, so the joint mortgages by the Bank of Gwangju is not established, and even if a collective auction on each of the above real estate is not held, the legal superficies is not established, and even if a collective auction is not held, the Plaintiff can exercise the mortgage on the above mortgaged real estate on behalf of the above Gwangju Bank within the extent of the amount that the above Gwangju Bank can be repaid out at the time of the auction (Article 368(2) of the Civil Act), so it cannot be readily concluded that the secured real estate in this case is not worth real value as collateral. (4) The Plaintiff asserted that the first instance court submitted the collateral real estate in this case from B, E, and H insolvent to B and H from the first instance court to 2013.