1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2.A claim added in the trial of the case:

(a)an action in respect of a part exceeding 131,323,407 won;

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasons why this court should explain the plaintiffs' existing claims are the same as the part against the defendant of the judgment of the court of first instance (with respect to C, D, E, and K real estate trust companies except the defendant among the co-defendants of the court of first instance, an appeal has not been filed or the judgment of the court of first instance has become final and conclusive due to the dismissal of a petition of appeal, etc.). Therefore, the relevant part is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

B. The gist of the cited portion is that: (a) the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the existence of the claim is recognized, and that the partial distribution demand of the Defendant does not violate the principle of good faith; and (b) even if the Defendant’s total amount of the claim is distributed from the auction proceeds of the instant land and the auction proceeds of the instant building, even if the total amount of the claim against the Defendant is distributed in proportion to the auction proceeds of the instant land and the auction proceeds of the instant building, the total amount of the claim against the Defendant is not different from the existing amount of the dividend, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant is groundless.

2. Determination as to the claim added in the trial

A. On the date of distribution of this case, the fact that the plaintiffs raised an objection only to KRW 131,323,407, which corresponds to interest or delay damages among the amount distributed to the defendant on the date of distribution of this case is identical to the above cited part. Therefore, the part of the plaintiffs' claims added in the trial in excess of the above amount is illegal due to the lack of qualification in the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution.

B. The gist of the remaining part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is that the Defendant Intervenor said that the Plaintiff “on the face of setting up a right to collateral security on the instant building, would extend the maturity of the loan and would not extend the maturity of the loan if it would not be set up,” and that the Intervenor believed that the Plaintiff would not make an extension of the maturity of the loan.”