1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

2. The Defendants jointly do so to the Intervenor succeeding the Plaintiff:

(a) annex.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as follows. On the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the respective “F and G” of the 5th and the 2nd of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as “the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff,” and “A evidence No. 14” shall be added to “the grounds for recognition,” and the 4th part of the judgment of the court

The following additions are the same as the "1. Basic Facts" of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following additions, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, “D. The Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff terminated the real estate security trust agreement concluded with the Plaintiff on April 30, 2018, and restored the ownership of the instant building.”

2. The reasoning for the court’s reasoning for this part of the judgment on the cause of the claim is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the Plaintiff, the owner of the first instance court’s decision, “the Plaintiff, the owner of the Plaintiff,” is deemed to be “the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff,” and the Plaintiff, the owner of the first instance judgment,” thereby citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The reasoning for the court’s reasoning on this part of the Defendants’ assertion is as follows: (a) the judgment of the court of first instance on the Defendants’ assertion is identical to that of “3. Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act; and (b) this part is cited

Of the pertinent parts, “F” is regarded as “F by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor.”

Part VI through the last day of the judgment of the first instance shall be as follows.

“1) In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the testimony of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor F, Defendant B leased the instant building to operate IS links, Defendant C leased the instant building from the FS Savings Bank around June 2007, and Defendant C operated AS links, and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor F.