1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C acceptance Intervenor L.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Supplementary Part】 On November 6, 2018, Defendant C added the supplementary registration of the provisional registration of transfer of ownership as to the above B’s share at the end of the “1. Basic Facts (In the absence of any dispute)” portion of the first instance judgment.

Once the judgment of the first instance is rendered, the following judgments as to the plaintiff's claim against the intervenor taking over between the 4th and 20th.

3. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against the Intervenor

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the share of inheritance (6/20) was comprehensively transferred from E through the letter of assignment of this case, but the share of inheritance of E was reverted to six co-inheritors including the Plaintiff by the subrogation registration of the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, and thus, the remaining co-inheritors except the Plaintiff constitute a title inheritor. Of the title inheritor, the Defendant B, who received the share of inheritance from J, is also a title inheritor and is obliged to cancel it. Accordingly, the transferee, who completed the additional registration of the transfer of provisional registration from the Defendant C, the person entitled to provisional registration, is obligated to express his/her intent to the registration of acceptance.

B. We examine the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff as seen earlier, and the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff is difficult to acknowledge that the Plaintiff received a comprehensive share of inheritance regarding D’s inherited property from E, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no ground to deem that the portion exceeding D’s 1/20 of the shares of inheritance by J is null and void. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against the assignee cannot be accepted.

2. Accordingly, the plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are with merit.