1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Around 2008, a public auction procedure was initiated on the first floor 104 of L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-

On April 7, 2010, an amount of KRW 215,878,390 (the proceeds of sale KRW 215,770,000, KRW 178,390, KRW 178,390), which is the date of allocation of the public auction procedure, 7,388,510, and KRW 28,391,820, and KRW 30, which is the seizure authority, 42,237,953, and KRW 137,860,107, which is the mortgagee, were distributed to Qu who is the mortgagee, and there was no amount distributed to the plaintiff who is the junior provisional seizure authority.

However, Q’s right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) was established in the instant building on January 22, 2007 by Defendant C, a representative director of the Nonparty Company, for the purpose of securing his/her obligations without going through a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors of the Nonparty Company.

(2) The Defendant’s judgment of breach of trust became final and conclusive on the ground that the instant right to collateral security was null and void as it guarantees false debt, and thus, the instant right to collateral security was filed against Q on the ground that it was null and void. The court held that, although the instant right to collateral security was caused by the Defendants’ abuse of the Defendants’ power of representation, the instant right to collateral security was valid as Q has acted in good faith. However, on the ground that the actual secured debt amount of the right to collateral security was KRW 120 million, the reasonable amount was recognized as KRW 70,670,479, and Q as KRW 109,427,581.

(Seoul High Court Decision 201Na4475, 2012Na852). This decision became final and conclusive as it is by a judgment of the Supreme Court.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff.