1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Defendants in the judgment is modified as follows.

The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant A.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as follows, and the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the part 17-18 of the judgment of the first instance (Provided, That this part is excluded from the white light, white light C, Co., Ltd. of the first instance court) and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A person shall be appointed.

F. On November 22, 2016, the Plaintiff succeeded to the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the loan claims against the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor, transferred to the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor all the rights accompanying the said loan balance claims, including the remainder of the loan (such as the outstanding principal 1,190,000,000,000) and interest thereon, delay damages, etc. on the said loan balance claims. On December 16, 2016, the Plaintiff added the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor’s additional registration of transfer of the Plaintiff’s shares to the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor from among the first priority collective security and the second priority collective

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 6 through 13 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap or Eul evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant A

A. ex officio, the Plaintiff’s interest in the confirmation of the lawsuit against Defendant A was examined, and the risk of the amount of dividend decrease due to the low-price successful bid would make the legal status of the mortgagee in the auction procedure. Therefore, the interests of the mortgagee who removes the above apprehension cannot be considered as a mere economic interest, and therefore, there is a legal interest in seeking confirmation of the existence of the right of retention against the mortgagee A.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da32848 delivered on September 23, 2004, etc.). B.

However, as recognized earlier, the Plaintiff lost its status as the mortgagee of each of the instant real estate by transferring the remainder of the loan and the right to collateral security on the remainder of the loan and the right to collateral security thereon to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff.