1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants and all appeals by Defendants B and D are dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff out of the appeal costs.

1. Acknowledgement and conclusion of the first instance judgment

A. Based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, and determination of issues) is sufficiently reasonable.

The reasoning of the lower court regarding the instant case is as follows: “At the time of the establishment of the above-mortgage, Defendant C was a part of the co-owners of K’s land at the time of the establishment of the above-mortgage; and the reasoning of the first instance judgment is identical to that of the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant D, except for the determination as to the grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff, Defendant D, as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, the reasoning of the lower judgment is cited by the main sentence of Article

B. If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is 3.0 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance cited by this court.

Each claim shall be accepted as it is reasonable within the scope of the “satisfy” part (10 - 5 - 17 -), and the remainder shall be dismissed on the ground that there is no reason.

The judgment of the court of first instance is just based on its conclusion, and thus, the Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants and the appeal by Defendant B and D are without merit.

Therefore, all appeals filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants and the appeals filed by Defendants B and D are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. (1) Determination as to the grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff (a) Summary of the grounds for appeal against Defendant D) Extinctive prescription of a claim for damages arising from a tort should be calculated from the time when the occurrence of damage was realized.

In the instant case, only when the land provided for securing the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants was sold at a voluntary auction on June 30, 201 (G land) or August 29 (J land) of 2013, when the land provided for securing the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants was sold at a voluntary auction, the occurrence of the damage should be deemed to have been realized.

The lawsuit of this case is filed.