The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court of first instance acknowledged facts as stated in its holding and rejected all the allegations as follows, i.e., that the plaintiff (appointed party)'s request for auction of this case was unlawful after the transfer of the instant right to collateral, and that the claim secured by the instant right to collateral expired after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period. Since the defendant created a pledge right to the instant right to collateral security, it did not have the right to receive dividends in the instant auction procedure. Since the ownership of the instant real estate and the instant right to collateral security belong to the same person, the instant right to ownership of the instant real estate and the instant right to collateral security are extinguished due to confusion, the defendant did not have the right to receive dividends in the instant auction procedure, and that the defendant

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty to resume pleadings, the legitimacy of application for auction, the requisite to oppose the assignment of claims, the nature of the guaranteed obligation, extinctive prescription, pledge right

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.