The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the Defendant purchased the instant land and buildings in the public sale procedure for the instant land and buildings, and acquired the ownership of each of the instant movables, on the ground that each of the instant movables falls under the attachment or accessory, and that there was a special agreement between the parties to the effect that the said public sale procedure is null and void or that the instant movables are not included in the trust property under the instant trust contract.

The Plaintiff rejected all the Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the instant movable property was excluded from the subject of sale in the instant public auction notice.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations in the said judgment, or did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the invalidation of the procedure for public sale, the suitability, the accessories, and the interpretation of intent, or by inconsistent reasoning

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 6, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff, who did not register the transfer of author’s property right to the computer program of this case, could not oppose the Defendant on the ground that it was a copyright acquirer for the computer program of this case, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, since the Defendant was authorized to use the computer program of this case by D, a copyright holder, and acquired the right to transfer the computer program of this case from O Co., Ltd. (former Co., Ltd.) as a mortgagee.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of intent.

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 7, the lower court, based on its reasoning, sells the instant public auction.