2. The succeeding intervenor and the independent party intervenor additionally added in the trial shall be dismissed in all applications for succession participation by the independent party intervenor and applications for intervention by the independent party;

3. Costs of appeal arising between the creditor and the debtor shall be borne by the succeeding intervenor and the independent party intervenor, respectively.

1. Purport of request;

For creditors and successors: The Seoul Central District Court 2008Kahap163, the provisional disposition order issued on February 25, 2008 between creditors and debtors, shall be approved by the above court as to the case of application for provisional disposition suspending the execution of duties by the Seoul Central District Court 200

The debtor: Revocation of the above provisional disposition order and the creditor's request for provisional disposition is dismissed.

2. Purport of appeal;

The first instance decision shall be revoked. The above provisional disposition decision shall be revoked, and the creditor's application for provisional disposition shall be dismissed.

3. Purport of participation by the independent party;

The debtor 1 shall not perform the duties of the president of the above partnership, the debtor 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the said partnership, the director of the said partnership, and the debtor 7 of the said partnership as an auditor of the said partnership, until the judgment on confirmation of nullity of the establishment of the partnership by Seoul Central District Court 208Gahap5149 became final and conclusive.

The succeeding intervenor and the independent party intervenor are entitled to participate in the real estate trusted prior to the date of the provisional disposition order as of February 25, 2008, among the real estate listed in the separate sheet, which came into the trial of the party, and then participate in the succession of the real estate trusted thereafter as the title).

According to the records, the following facts are proved.

(a) Designation of an improvement zone;

Pursuant to Article 3 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 8785 of Dec. 21, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the "Do Government Act"), the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City established a master plan for urban and residential environment improvement in housing development projects and residential environment improvement projects, and publicly announced on June 25, 2004 by Seoul Public Notice No. 2004-204 of Seoul Special Metropolitan City. Under the above master plan, the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the "Dong and lot No. 1 omitted) was designated as a prospective project zone for housing redevelopment projects. On June 21, 2007, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City designated the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the "instant rearrangement zone") as a rearrangement zone and publicly announced it as a public notice No. 2007-1999 of Seoul Metropolitan City.

(b) Acquisition of ownership by creditors and trust of trust;

⒧ 채권자는 이 사건 정비구역 내 토지인 별지 부동산목록 ‘지번’란 기재 각 부동산(단, 서울 동작구 상도동 지번들이다. 이하, ‘이 사건 각 부동산’이라 한다)을 ‘ 채권자 주식회사 소유권취득일’란 기재 각 일자에 ‘전소유자’란 기재 각 소유자들로부터 이를 매수 또는 경락 등으로 취득하여 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다.

See The creditor held that the registration of trust was completed in the name of the succeeding intervenor and the independent party intervenor in the name of the succeeding intervenor and the registration of trust in the name of the independent party intervenor on each date stated in the "registration date of trust" column for the real estate stated in the "registration date of trust" column

(c) Establishment of partnership for maintenance and improvement of debtors;

⒧ 채무자들은 이 사건 정비구역 내 토지 지상에 있는 무허가건축물을 각 소유하고 있거나 소유하였던 자들이다.

The debtor 1 filed an application with the head of Dongjak-gu with the consent of 182 persons from among the 52 landowners and building owners within the said zone, 16 landowners, and 273 building owners (the 272 persons among them are unauthorized building owners) to approve the composition of the ○○ Housing Redevelopment Development Project Promotion Committee (hereinafter “instant Promotion Committee”) on April 13, 2005. The head of Dongjak-gu approved 54.25% (185 persons/341 persons) of the majority of the owners of lands, etc. stipulated in subparagraph 9 (a) of Article 2 of the Do Government Act on April 13, 2005 on the ground that the 54.25% (185 persons/341) of the owners of lands, etc. within the said zone agreed to the composition of the Promotion Committee of this case.

On August 23, 2007, the promotion committee of this case held an inaugural general meeting consisting of the establishment of the ○○ Housing Redevelopment Development Project Association (hereinafter “instant association”). Of 53 landowners of land and buildings in the rearrangement zone of this case, 26 persons from among 53 landowners, 23 landowners, and 265 persons from among 292 building owners (290 persons from this case are unauthorized building owners) (hereinafter “the resolution of the establishment of the instant association”), and appointed one debtor as the head of the association, the debtor2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 as directors, and the debtor 7 as auditors, respectively.

Applicant The promotion committee of this case applied for authorization to establish the association of this case to the head of Dongjak-gu on October 16, 2007. On December 20, 2007, the head of Dongjak-gu filed an application for authorization to establish the association of this case on the ground that at least 4/5 of the owners of land, etc. (at least 298 persons/368 persons) agreed to establish the association of this case.

(d) Application for provisional disposition by creditors;

⒧ 채권자는 2008. 1. 15. 서울중앙지방법원 2008카합163호 로 채무자들을 상대로 조합임원직무 집행정지가처분을 신청하였다. 위 법원은 2008. 2. 25. 이를 받아들여 “채권자의 이 사건 조합에 대한 임원선임결의무효확인 청구사건의 본안판결 확정시까지, 채무자 1은 위 조합의 조합장, 채무자 2, 3, 4, 5, 6은 위 조합의 이사, 채무자 7은 위 조합의 감사로서의 각 직무를 집행하여서는 아니된다”는 내용의 가처분결정(이하, ‘이 사건 가처분결정’이라 한다)을 하였다.

Things The debtor raised an objection to Seoul Central District Court 2008Kahap807, but the above court rendered a decision to authorize the above provisional disposition on April 15, 2008 (hereinafter "the first instance court decision").

On May 15, 2008, the above court made a provisional disposition that appoints an acting president of the partnership.

2. Judgment on the lawfulness of the appeal

The obligee asserts that since all unauthorized buildings owned by the obligor were removed, the obligor is no longer entitled to file the instant appeal.

However, insofar as the decision of the first instance court of this case has authorized the obligor to suspend the performance of duties as executive officers of the association of this case, the obligor may file an appeal against the decision of the first instance court regardless of whether or not the obligor owns an unauthorized building. The obligee’s assertion is without merit in itself.

3. Determination on the lawfulness of the request for intervention by an independent party

A. Among the participation by an independent party, participation in the proposal of right is permitted when a third party asserts that the whole or part of the subject matter of the lawsuit is his/her own right, and the claim of the intervenor and the claim of the intervenor are not compatible with the assertion itself. The participation in the prevention of harm may be allowed in cases where it is objectively acknowledged that the obligee and the debtor of the principal lawsuit have the intent to harm the intervenor through the lawsuit, and it is acknowledged that the intervenor’s right or legal status may be infringed upon as a result of the lawsuit.

B. First, we examine whether the instant application for intervention by the independent party is legitimate as an intervention in the petition of right.

In the case of this case, an independent party intervenor was entrusted by the obligee prior to the decision of provisional disposition of this case, and therefore, the owner of each of the above lands externally claims that he/she is an independent party intervenor. However, in this case, inasmuch as the obligee claims against the obligor on the ground that he/she is the truster of each of the above lands as a truster of each of the above lands (the obligee asserted that he/she is the owner of each of the above lands in the first instance court, but the obligee clearly claims that he/she is the truster's status as the owner of each of the above lands, but the claim of this case was made in the first instance court, but the obligee clearly stated that he/she is the truster's status as the truster and the status as the trustee of the independent party intervenor are compatible with the obligee's assertion. Accordingly, the application for intervention of the independent party of this case is unlawful

C. Next, we examine whether the application for intervention by the independent party of this case is legitimate as an intervention in prevention of harm.

In light of the fact that the creditor actively claims the application of this case and the decision of provisional disposition of this case are justifiable, and the debtor also claims the revocation thereof with respect to the decision of provisional disposition of this case, there is no evidence to prove that the creditor and the debtor have an intention to harm the intervenor of the independent party through the lawsuit of this case, and otherwise there is no other evidence to prove that the creditor and the debtor have an intention to harm the intervenor of the independent party. Therefore, the application for intervention of the independent party of this case is unlawful because it does not meet the requirements for the prevention of harm.

4. Determination on the lawfulness of the application for intervention by succession

The successor intervenor is participating in the application of this case on the ground that the real estate listed in Nos. 1 through 15 was entrusted by the creditor.

However, the right to be preserved claimed by the creditor upon the application of this case is merely the status of the truster of each real estate as stated in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2, and the phrase “after the application for the suspension of performance of duties” as stated in the separate sheet is not claimed or added as the right to be preserved by the creditor or the truster of each real estate as stated in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 15.

Therefore, even if the creditor acquired the ownership of each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 15 and again entrusted it to the succeeding intervenor after the application for provisional disposition of this case, the succeeding intervenor cannot participate in this case due to such reason.

Ultimately, the successor's application for intervention by succession is unlawful.

5. Determination as to the pre-request defense

Since the establishment resolution of the association of this case is nonexistent or null and void with the consent of the owners of unauthorized buildings who do not fall under the "owners of land, etc." under subparagraph 9 (a) of Article 2 of the Do governor Act, the debtor sought suspension of the performance of duties as executive officers of the association, who have the external appearance of the union, and the debtor is deemed to have raised prior defense that the creditor is not eligible to file the application of this case.

A. The assertion that there is no benefit in confirmation since it is not the object of civil procedure

⒧ 채무자들 주장의 요지

The association of this case constitutes a public corporation established under the Do administration Act and is subject to administrative litigation. Therefore, the association of this case cannot seek confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the establishment of the association of this case due to civil litigation and seek suspension of the execution of its duties due to civil provisional disposition.

Shed Judgment

㈎ 도정법에서 조합은 그 명칭 중에 ‘정비사업조합’이라는 문자를 사용하도록 하고( 법 제18조 제3항 ), 사업비용의 부과 및 연체료를 징수할 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 그 징수를 시장·군수에게 위탁할 수 있고( 법 제61조 ), 토지 등을 수용할 수 있고( 법 제38조 ), 자료의 제출, 임원의 개선 등 행정청에 의한 감독을 받도록 하고 있는 점( 법 제75조 , 제77조 ) 및 재개발이라는 사업의 공공성 등을 고려할 때, 이 사건 조합은 공법상 법인이라고 할 것이고, 재개발사업을 시행하기 위하여 정비구역 내의 토지 및 건물의 소유자들로 구성된 정비사업조합의 법률관계는 공법상의 권리의무관계로 보아야 한다.

㈏ 한편, 도정법은 정비사업의 추진과정마다 조합원총회를 요구하고 있고( 법 제13조 , 제24조 제3항 ) 그러한 총회는 통상 이를 기본행위로 하여 행정청이 이를 보완하는 보충적 행정행위를 함으로써 완성되도록 하고 있다. 따라서 행정청의 보충행위에 의하여 완성되는 각종 정비사업의 단계별 구체적인 내용에 대하여 분쟁이 발생하는 경우, 행정청의 보충적 행정행위에 대해서는 그 자체에 존재하는 하자에 한하여 다툴 수 있으므로, 조합원들로서는 그 기본행위를 함에 있어서 필요적으로 거치게 되는 조합원총회 결의의 하자를 가지고 소송을 제기할 수밖에 없다. 그런데 조합의 창립총회결의의 하자에 대하여 그 부존재 또는 무효확인을 구하는 것은 공법인인 정비사업조합과는 무관하므로 일반 이론으로 돌아가 민사소송의 형태로 제기하는 것이 타당하다.

㈐ 따라서 이와 다른 전제에 선 채무자들의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

B. Claim that no applicant is eligible as a truster

⒧ 채무자들 주장의 요지

A creditor already trusted each of the real estate listed in the separate list of the instant real estate as collateral to an independent party intervenor prior to the filing of the instant application. Accordingly, since each of the said real estate has the right to manage the trust property domestically and externally, there is no benefit for the creditor, who is the truster, to seek confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the establishment of the instant association.

Shed Judgment

㈎ 채권자가 이 사건 각 부동산 중 별지 목록 기재 ‘직무정지가처분신청 이전’란의 순번 1, 2의 기재 각 부동산을 이 사건 신청 제기 이전에 이미 독립당사자참가인에게 담보신탁한 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같다.

㈏ 한편, 신탁법상의 신탁은 위탁자가 수탁자에게 특정의 재산권을 이전하거나 기타의 처분을 하여 수탁자로 하여금 신탁 목적을 위하여 그 재산권을 관리·처분하게 하는 것이므로, 부동산의 신탁에 있어서 수탁자 앞으로 소유권이전등기를 마치게 되면 대내외적으로 소유권이 수탁자에게 완전히 이전되고, 위탁자와의 내부관계에 있어서 소유권이 위탁자에게 유보되어 있는 것은 아니며, 이와 같은 신탁의 효력으로서 신탁재산의 소유권이 수탁자에게 이전되는 결과 수탁자는 대내외적으로 신탁재산에 대한 관리권을 갖는 것이고, 다만 수탁자는 신탁의 목적 범위 내에서 신탁계약에 정하여진 바에 따라 신탁재산을 관리하여야 하는 제한을 부담함에 불과하므로( 대법원 2002. 4. 12. 선고 2000다70460 판결 등 참조), 위 각 부동산은 위 신탁으로 인하여 그 관리처분권이 독립당사자참가인에게 이전되었고, 채권자는 이 사건 각 부동산의 소유자로서의 지위를 상실하였다.

㈐ 그러나 한편으로 확인의 소에 있어서, 당사자 일방과 제3자 사이의 권리관계 또는 제3자 사이의 권리관계에 관하여도 그에 관하여 당사자 사이에 다툼이 있어서 당사자 일방의 권리관계에 불안이나 위험이 초래되고 있고, 다른 일방에 대한 관계에서 그 법률관계를 확정시키는 것이 당사자의 권리관계에 대한 불안이나 위험을 제거할 수 있는 유효·적절한 수단이 되는 경우에는 당사자 일방과 제3자 사이의 권리관계 또는 제3자 사이의 권리관계에 관하여도 확인의 이익이 있다( 대법원 2008. 2. 15. 선고 2006다77272 판결 등 참조).

In this case, according to the records, the creditor will undertake multi-family housing projects that build and sell apartment units on a scale of 50,367.168 square meters in Dongjak-gu Seoul (hereinafter the same name and lot number 2 omitted) including each of the land in this case, including the land in this case. The creditor's financing is to raise funds by the project financing method after the purchase of each of the land in this case. Accordingly, the creditor's purchase of each of the real estate listed in the No. 1 and No. 2 in the No. 2 of the "transfer of the application for the suspension of performance of duties" in the attached list is proved to have been again concluded with the intervenor of the independent party and trusted each of the above real estate as collateral with the financial company that is the priority beneficiary in the trust ledger, and it is proved that the creditor has received funds from the financial company that is the priority beneficiary in the trust ledger.

As such, an independent party intervenor and an independent party intervenor have the legal relationship under the trust agreement with each of the above real estate trust, and the above trust is merely a security trust with the independent party intervenor for the purpose of lending a PF loan, and thus, where the trust is terminated or terminated, the obligee also has the right to claim the return of ownership of each of the above land. However, if the instant association continues to implement a housing redevelopment rearrangement project with each of the above land as an improvement zone and ultimately expropriates each of the above land, the truster and trustee lose ownership against the intent of the trust. Therefore, if the instant association continues to implement a housing redevelopment rearrangement project by asserting that even if the establishment of the instant association was defective as alleged by the obligee despite the defect in the establishment of the association, the obligee’s right to each of the above land and legal status, or the exercise of the property right to carry out the apartment housing project, and on the other hand, the establishment of the reconstruction rearrangement project association becomes a collective legal act with the interests of all the owners of land in the project zone, and thus, it becomes effective and appropriate means to seek a resolution against the association against the obligee.

Therefore, a creditor may seek confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the establishment of the association of this case against the association of this case as the truster of each of the above real estate. Furthermore, if the debtor claims that the establishment of the association of this case was null and void, as alleged by the creditor, that the association of this case was elected as the president or director of the association of this case, the creditor may seek confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the appointment of an officer against the association of this case as a means of removing the illegal appearance, and may seek suspension of the execution of his duties against the debtor until the judgment of the principal decision becomes final and conclusive (in this sense, the claim of the debtor that the provisional disposition application of this case, which is based on

㈑ 그러므로 이 부분 채무자들의 주장도 이유 없다.

C. The assertion that the non-party 1 foundation did not acquire the ownership of the real estate

⒧ 채무자들 주장의 요지

The total sum of KRW 219,390, forest land of Dongjak-gu Seoul (hereinafter name and lot number 3 omitted) before the division is the basic property of the non-party 1 foundation. However, the non-party 1 foundation did not obtain permission from the Dongjak-gu Office, the ordering authority, in disposing of the above real estate, which is its basic property, to third parties including creditors. Therefore, the disposition of the basic property of the non-party 1 foundation is null and void, and the creditor has no interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the establishment of the

Shed Judgment

㈎ 별지 목록 기재 ‘직무정지가처분 신청 이전’란의 순번 1의 각 부동산은 채권자가 소외 2로부터, 순번 2의 각 부동산은 소외 3으로부터 각 취득한 것이다.

㈏ 그런데 채권자가 소외 3으로부터 취득한 위 순번 2. 각 부동산이 소외 1 재단법인의 기본재산이었고 소외 1 재단법인이 이를 주무관청의 허가 없이 이를 임의로 매도한 것이라는 점에 관하여 아무런 주장 및 소명자료가 없다.

Rather, on December 31, 1971, Nonparty 4 purchased part of the share from Nonparty 1’s Foundation and Nonparty 5’s co-ownership on the above No. 2 of the real estate (hereinafter name and No. 4 omitted), and on September 29, 1975, Nonparty 6’s name, Nonparty 7 on June 8, 1978, Nonparty 8 on September 24, 2001, and on March 8, 2002, Nonparty 3 purchased shares on May 19, 2004, after it was transferred under the co-ownership of Nonparty 9, etc. on May 19, 2004, and Nonparty 3’s first purchase of shares on March 22, 1973, and Nonparty 1 purchased shares from Nonparty 1’s Foundation and Nonparty 4 on March 31, 201, respectively, on which Nonparty 3 purchased shares on May 19, 2004.

㈐ 따라서 채권자는 위 순번 2. 각 부동산의 위탁자 지위만으로도 이 사건 조합설립결의의 무효확인을 구할 수 있고 그에 따라 이 사건 신청을 구할 이익이 있는 것이므로 결국 채무자들의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없는 것에 귀착된다.

6. Determination as to an application

A. Determination as to an application

We examine whether the owner of an unauthorized building located on the land in the instant improvement zone is included in the “owner of land, etc.” under Article 2 subparag. 9 (a) of the Do Government Act.

(1) Article 2 subparag. 9 (a) and Article 19 (1) of the Do Government Act provide that the owner or superficies of the land or building located in the rearrangement zone shall be a member of the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association. ① An unauthorized building shall, in principle, be removed in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and allowing the owner to enjoy benefits from the implementation of the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project as a result of giving the owner the qualification as a member of the association is not permitted. ② In order to smoothly implement the Housing Redevelopment Project, there is no substantial need to regulate the construction of unauthorized housing indiscreetly located in the housing redevelopment zone. In light of the fact that there is no substantial need to regulate the construction of the housing redevelopment project, it means a building that is eligible to be a member of the association in principle, and the building without permission shall not be included in the scope of the building without permission. However, each association may determine the qualification of association members to the owner of an unauthorized building within a certain scope (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu7579, Jul. 29, 1997).

In the instant case, the instant association is centered on the owners of unauthorized buildings within the instant rearrangement zone, and all its executives are the owners of unauthorized buildings. Meanwhile, according to the records, most of the owners of the land except the owners of unauthorized buildings agree to the establishment of the instant association. However, 78 owners of the land agree to the establishment of the instant association, and the ratio of consent is about 42.3%, and it does not reach at least 4/5 of the owners of the land stipulated in Article 16(1) of the Do Government Act. The following circumstances are: ① the owners of unauthorized buildings cannot be deemed as the owners of the land, in principle, as being eligible for membership; ② the owners of unauthorized buildings cannot be deemed as the owners of the land at least the status of exceptionally recognized membership by the articles of association; ② the owners of the land at least 5 without permission, if the owners of the land at issue, were to be construed as the owners of the land at least 9/10 of the Act on the Establishment of Housing Redevelopment and Development Projects, are not likely to violate the law on the establishment of the landowners at least 2 without permission.

The establishment resolution of the association of this case is nonexistent or null and void. Therefore, in light of the fact that the activities of the association of this case under the premise that the association of this case is a legally established partnership under the law of Do and all activities of its officers are unlawful, and that there is a risk of considerable damage to the persons transferred to the association members if they neglect their activities, there is a need to urgently exclude the debtor from the performance of duties of the executive officers of the association of this case. Ultimately, the creditor's application for provisional disposition of this case has an explanation on the necessity of preserving the right and preservation.

B. Determination of the debtor's assertion

⒧ 채무자들은 도정법 제2조 제3호 다목 , 제4조 제1항 , 도정법 시행령 제2조 제2항 제3호 , 제10조 제1항 , 서울특별시 도시 및 주거환경정비조례(2007. 12. 26. 서울특별시 조례 제4601호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘시조례’라 한다) 제2조 제1호, 제3조 제2항 제1호에 비추어 보면, 기존무허가건축물이 주택재개발정비사업의 대상이 되는 정비구역 내의 노후·불량건축물에 해당하므로, 당연히 기존무허가건축물의 소유자는 도정법 제2조 제9호 가목 에서 정한 토지등소유자에 포함된다고 주장한다.

However, each of the above provisions cited by the debtor is about the area subject to the establishment of the rearrangement plan, and is not a provision about the scope of the owners of lands, etc., and it cannot be deemed that the owner of an unauthorized building is included in the owners of lands, etc. under Article 2 subparagraph 9 (a) of the Do Government Act. Therefore, this part of the debtor's assertion

In light of Article 9(1) and (2) of the Standard Articles of the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association and Article 24(1)1 of the City Ordinance, the debtors asserts that the owners of existing unauthorized buildings are included in the owners of land, etc. who can consent to the establishment of the association of this case, since the Housing Redevelopment and Development Project Association established the housing redevelopment and Development Project Association, unlike the owners of new unauthorized buildings, are entitled to be qualified as the objects of sale of multi-family housing.

According to the records, Article 9 of the Standard Articles of Incorporation of a Housing Redevelopment Project Association provides that the association members shall be the owners or persons with superficies for the land or buildings within the project implementation district as stipulated in the Civil Act, i.e., the owners of the land or buildings without permission, and in the case of buildings without permission, only the existing unauthorized buildings as stipulated in the Municipal Ordinance of the City established under the Act, which prove that they are their own ownership. However, each of the above provisions cited as the grounds by the debtors are interpreted to be that the owners of unauthorized buildings may be qualified as association members by the articles of incorporation of the association after the establishment of the Housing Redevelopment Project Association is lawful, and it cannot be deemed that the owners of unauthorized buildings are included in the owners of the land or buildings stipulated in subparagraph 9 (a) of Article 2 of the Do Government Act even before the establishment of the association. The debtor's assertion

Secondly, the debtor agreed on June 18, 2007 with the promotion committee of this case and the redevelopment project. The debtor asserts that the filing of the provisional disposition of this case is against the principle of good faith or that there is no need to preserve it.

According to the records, if most of the members in the project area of this case want to implement a housing redevelopment project on June 18, 2007, it is proved that the committee and creditors of this case agreed to carry out the project if there is no legal defect in the project and it is possible to carry out the project smoothly and rapidly. However, since the above agreement is clearly based on the premise that there is no legal defect in the housing redevelopment project, it is obvious that the agreement is made under the premise that there is no legal defect in the association establishment resolution of this case, as seen earlier, the application of this case is not contrary to the good faith or there is no need to preserve it. The debtor's application of this part

7. Conclusion

Thus, the motion of this case shall be accepted by the creditor on the ground of its reasoning. The decision of the court of first instance is just and without merit, and the debtor's appeal is not reasonable, and the application for succession participation and the application for intervention by the independent party shall be dismissed in its entirety as it is unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Byung-chul (Presiding Judge) Constitution of the Republic of Korea