1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part rejecting the motion for intervention by the Intervenor joining the Defendant is revoked.

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition and deletion as mentioned below 2. Thus, this case is quoted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Part 5, 15 to 6, 8, of the first instance judgment, which is dismissed or added, shall be dismissed as follows, and the motion for intervention in the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor

According to the judgment of the instant lawsuit, the Intervenor’s Intervenor is determined whether to receive distribution of the entire proceeds from the auction procedure of the Ba of this case with the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor or the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor received preferential distribution as a collateral security holder, and whether to receive distribution only for the remainder of the proceeds from the sale. Ultimately, the Defendant’s Intervenor’s joining the Defendant’s joining the Defendant is in a relationship that determines legal status on the premise of the judgment of the instant lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2014Ma4009, May 29, 2014). Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s joining the Defendant’s joining the Defendant’s joining the Defendant’s joining the Defendant’s joining the Defendant’s Intervenor’s joining the Defendant’s joining the Defendant’s joining the Defendant’s joining the Defendant

A person shall be appointed.

C. (1) On December 3, 2015, the Defendant’s Intervenor asserted that the Defendant could not seek the implementation of the registration of establishment of a collateral on the ground of the agreement on additional mortgage on December 3, 2015, on the instant loan, since the Defendant prepared and delivered a subsequent mortgage agreement and a letter of security for transfer to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff agreed to establish a collateral security right with respect to the instant loan. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s heir cannot seek the implementation of the registration of establishment of a collateral security right due to the agreement on additional mortgage on December 3, 2015.

(2) Each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 3 and evidence Nos. 3 are included.