The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant joining the Defendant.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that the instant security agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant cannot be deemed null and void as an anti-social juristic act.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles as to anti-social legal acts, or of violating the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

2. On the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court rejected the Intervenor’s assertion on the ground that the Plaintiff could not acquire the right to transfer security on the pressure vessel of this case on the premise that the ownership of the pressure vessel of this case belongs smoothly to the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”).

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles regarding the reversion of the ownership of the crops under the production supply contract, or of misapprehending the bounds of the free evaluation of evidence

3. As to the third ground of appeal, the lower court rejected the Intervenor’s assertion that the Intervenor bona fide acquired the instant provisional disposition pressure vessel on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles on bona fide acquisition, or of misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

4. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the lower court concluded the instant transfer security agreement.