1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claims extended by this court are dismissed, respectively.

2. The costs of appeal and the claims in this court.

1. The plaintiff's main ground for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is added to the evidence additionally submitted

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Determination” as to the assertion emphasized or added by the Plaintiff in this court, and therefore, it is identical to the ground for the first instance judgment, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main text

2. Additional determination

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff was as follows: Defendant B, by deceiving the Plaintiff, cancelled the registration of provisional seizure of this case which was completed on the instant real estate.

In the absence of Defendant B’s deception, the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate provisional seizure to the principal seizure, and received the repayment of the loan through the voluntary auction of the instant real estate.

3,305,177,000 won in the market price of the instant real estate confirmed in the auction case of the instant real estate, and even if the said market price deducts KRW 965,00,000, which takes precedence over the Plaintiff’s registration of the instant provisional seizure, the amount of KRW 2,340,177,000 in excess of the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant real estate, so if there was a provisional seizure registration of this case, the Plaintiff could have received a total amount of loan claims

Therefore, the amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to Defendant B’s deception (i.e., loans of KRW 1,200,000,000 - Plaintiff’s collection amount of KRW 410,000,000), and Defendant C, the representative of Defendant B and Defendant B, is jointly liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the said amount.

B. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 6, the following facts are as follows: ① Defendant B borrowed KRW 1,200,000 from the plaintiff; ② the provisional seizure registration of this case was completed on February 13, 2009; ③ Defendant B was on June 12, 2009.