The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party D.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the forgery of a document to establish a mortgage and the non-existence of a secured claim, the lower court forged the document to establish a mortgage of this case as indicated in its reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the assertion on the application of the Special Act on the Protection of Surety (hereinafter “Surety Protection Act”), Article 1 of the Surety Protection Act provides that the purpose of the Act is to prevent the economic and mental harm of the guarantor, without any consideration, and to contribute to the establishment of a credit society by establishing a reasonable practice of guarantee contract for monetary obligations, by prescribing special cases concerning guarantee under the Civil Act. Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the same Act provides that “a guarantor means a person who bears a guaranteed obligation under Article 429(1) of the Civil Act” and Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the same Act provides that “a guarantee contract refers to a contract between a creditor and a guarantor, regardless of its form or name, where a debtor fails to perform his/her monetary obligation against a creditor.”

In light of the above purpose and text of the Surety Protection Act, the Surety Protection Act only applies to cases where a surety is to bear a surety obligation under Article 429(1) of the Civil Act, but does not apply to a physical guarantee which takes responsibility within the limit of the collateral for another person's obligation.

In this case, the court below established the mortgage contract of this case.