2. The Intervenor joining the Defendant shall bear the costs of the intervention in the appeal.

2.(c)

(1) The following is added to the first part, and ① the deletion of the part “(i)” and “(ii)” is identical to the grounds for the first instance judgment, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. “Third party” under Article 4(3) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”) refers to a person, other than a party to a title trust agreement and a general successor, who has entered into a new interest directly with the title trustee on the basis that the title trustee is a real right holder. As such, a title truster does not constitute a third party. Meanwhile, if a person who has registered a real estate held a title trust by a title trustee is not a third party under the said provision, the title truster cannot assert the validity of his/her registration completed based on the registration of title trust that is null and void under Article 4(3) of the Real Estate Real Name Act

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da34667, 34674 Decided November 10, 2005). Therefore, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage completed in the future of a title truster based on an invalid registration of title trust is null and void.

(Supreme Court Decision 2014Da53790 Decided April 23, 2015). 3. As such, the first instance judgment is justifiable, and the Defendants’ appeal is all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.