1. An intervenor who has taken over the defendant corporation, the defendant corporation, the defendant corporation's character savings bank among the judgment of the first instance.

1. Progress of litigation;

A. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought the co-defendant B of the first instance trial to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the acquisition of the section of exclusive ownership as stated in the attached Table 1’s “the indication of the building of the section of exclusive ownership” as to each of the shares listed in (b), (c), and (d) of the attached Table 2’s “the details of ownership transfer”; and (2) the Plaintiff sought the co-defendant B of the first instance trial to perform the procedure for ownership transfer registration and cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage registration; and (3) the Plaintiff, as the obligee’s subrogation claim, sought the first instance court’s co-defendant B to perform the procedure for ownership transfer registration and the cancellation registration

B. The court of the first instance accepted the claim against the co-defendant B and the primary claim against the defendant chip and the assignee, and did not judge the conjunctive claim against the defendant chip and the assignee

In regard to this, since only the defendant Tagan and the assignee appealed (the petition of appeal filed by the co-defendant B of the first instance court was dismissed), the subject of the judgment by the court is limited to the claim made by the defendant Tagan and the assignee.

2. The reasons why this Court uses this part of the underlying facts are as follows: (a) each of the “Defendant B” as “Codefendant B of the first instance trial,” except for the reasons why each of the “Defendant B” is dismissed as “Codefendant B of the first instance trial,” and therefore, it is identical to the part of “1. Basic Facts” in the reasoning of the first instance trial.

3. The reasons why this Court uses this part of the sectional ownership acquisition are as follows, except for the dismissal or addition of the corresponding parts, and the reasons for the judgment of the court of the first instance are the same as the part of “2...... whether to acquire sectional ownership” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. As such, this part is acceptable.

The "B and" in Part 4 of the decision of the first instance shall be deleted.

(b) Each “Defendant B” is a co-defendant of the first instance trial.