1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claims extended or added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

The reasoning for this part is as follows: (a) the reasoning for this part of the judgment of the first instance is that the plaintiff of the third class “debtor” is dismissed as “debtor C”; (b) the ground for recognition of the fourth class 11 and 12 are as follows; and (c) the following are the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for adding the following matters after the second class of the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(k) On September 6, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 260,954,661 with the Defendant, G, I, H, and F as the principal deposit.

Other. On September 20, 2018, the Defendant, etc. withdrawn the application for voluntary auction, and accordingly, the registration of the decision on voluntary auction was cancelled on September 28, 2018.

(m) The instant right to collateral security regarding the instant land was cancelled on October 2, 2018 due to termination on September 20, 2018.

In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the legality of the part of a claim seeking confirmation of non-existence of an obligation, the subject of confirmation requires the present rights or legal relations. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the existence of past rights or legal relations is not recognized. Thus, a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a secured obligation of the right to collateral security is cancelled, and there is no benefit of confirmation as it concerns the past rights or legal relations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da17585, Aug. 23, 2013). The Plaintiff claims confirmation of non-existence of part of the secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security, but the cancellation of the instant right to collateral security is identical to the facts established in the foregoing facts. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned claim is unlawful as it concerns the existence of past rights or legal relations,

The Defendant, etc. asserted by the Plaintiff as to the claim for additional monetary payment in this Court, upon applying for a voluntary auction on the instant land, lent KRW 250,000,00 to C with interest rate of KRW 30% per annum, and set the instant collateral security interest as principal.