1. The appeal by the defendant succeeding intervenor and the application for intervention by the plaintiff succeeding intervenor shall be dismissed in entirety;

2. After the appeal:

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the records of this case.

A. On June 1, 2017, the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid of 756 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) prior to Dongcheon-si and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name. The Defendant completed the registration of creation of superficies under the name (hereinafter “registration of creation of superficies”) under the title registration No. 1722, which was received on March 3, 2006 from the Suwon District Court, Ansan-gu, Seoul District Court, and the Defendant completed the registration of creation of superficies under the name (hereinafter “registration of creation of superficies”).

B. On July 7, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the registration of creation of superficies of this case against the Defendant was extinguished along with the first priority mortgage as a collateral superficies, and filed the instant lawsuit seeking implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of creation of superficies of this case, and completed the provisional disposition on July 20, 2017, subject to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Kadan808644 as the right to claim the exclusion of interference based on ownership as the right to be preserved.

C. On August 31, 2017, on the instant real estate, the registration of transfer of IM loans and superficies in the name of the Intervenor succeeding to the Defendant was completed in sequence on the grounds of the superficies acquisition agreement concluded on June 2, 2017.

The Defendant’s succeeding intervenor asserted that he succeeded to the Defendant’s rights on October 20, 2017, and applied for succession to the court of first instance. On November 3, 2017, the Defendant submitted a written withdrawal from the court of first instance to the court of first instance, but the Plaintiff consented to withdrawal from the court of first instance.

E. Even after the application for intervention by succession by the defendant succeeding intervenor was filed, the plaintiff only maintained the claim against the defendant, and did not make a separate claim against the defendant succeeding intervenor.

Therefore, the court of the first instance rendered a judgment against the defendant without mentioning the intervenor succeeding to the defendant, ordering the defendant to implement the procedure of cancelling the registration of creation of superficies of this case, and the defendant did not appeal against the judgment of the first instance.