The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below as to the ground of appeal No. 1 in light of the records, the court below is just in holding that Defendant B purchased the real estate No. 1 and No. 2 of this case from Defendant B, and paid the price in full. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record as to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that: (a) the sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Samho Industrial Development Co., Ltd. with respect to the real estate No. 3 through No. 6 of the instant case and the resale contract was concluded on January 20, 192 and Defendant D; and (b) the payment was made in full when the Plaintiff, Samho Industrial Development and Defendant D reached an agreement of interim omission registration; and (c) contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record as to the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that all the establishment registration of each of the instant collateral in the name of the Defendants was established to secure monetary claims, such as conditional damages or unjust enrichment claims that may arise from the disposal of each of the instant real estate in the future in order to preserve the Defendants’ right to claim ownership transfer registration against the Plaintiff. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.