1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff, on August 27, 2010, transferred 36,673,855 won of the loans owed by C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D Co., Ltd.”) to Gwangju Bank by subrogation, and completed the registration of the transfer of the right to collateral security in the name of the Plaintiff, while transferring 36,673,855 won of the loans owed by C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D Co., Ltd.”) to Gwangju Bank, Gwangju Bank. The Defendant removed the appraised amount of KRW 27,00,000 of the object of the said right to collateral security by retirement equivalent to the appraised amount of KRW 27,00,000 among the object of the said right to collateral security, as the representative director of the non-party company is acting for the non-party company, can be recognized by the statements in

(2) The plaintiff argues that the plaintiff cannot exercise the right to collateral security against the retirement due to the removal of the defendant, and thus, he suffered a loss equivalent to the above appraisal value, and thus the defendant has a duty to compensate for it.

The right to claim damages due to tort or non-performance of obligation is established in a realistic and conclusive manner.

However, if evidence Nos. 13-1, 2, 7, and 8 of the evidence Nos. 13-1, 13-2, 7, and 8 show the whole purport of the pleading, the total appraised value of the auction subject matter of the plaintiff's above-mortgage in the auction procedure [Maju District Court E, F (Joint), G (Joint)] is more than 431,01,800 won, which exceeds the maximum debt amount of the plaintiff's right to collateral security. In the above auction procedure, the plaintiff participated in the auction procedure as the first priority mortgagee, and the above auction procedure was withdrawn on June 3, 2015 and currently under the auction procedure on the subject matter of collateral security, and it is difficult to view that the damage alleged by the plaintiff has been actually confirmed.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is based on a different premise.