All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A lawsuit seeking the cancellation of a registration against a person liable for registration, i.e., a person who loses his/her right or is not a person who is not a person (the title holder of the registration or his/her general successor) due to the registration in the form stated in the registry, is an unlawful lawsuit against a person without standing

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da39225 delivered on February 25, 1994). The court below held that the lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the registration procedure for the establishment of a neighboring mortgage shall be brought against the mortgagee, who is the person liable for registration, and that the debtor is not the defendant, and that the part seeking the cancellation against the defendants, who are the debtor of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, at the time of the original adjudication, is unlawful as it is against the non-party entitled to the defendant. It is justifiable in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier. The court below did not explain the legal principles as to the claim for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage so that the plaintiff can perform the pertinent litigation, and thus, did not perform the duty

2. After finding the facts based on the evidence of employment, the lower court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendants and the cancellation of additional registration of transfer of each right to collateral security, on the premise that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant B and the registration of change in the right to collateral security that changed the debtor to B was invalid at the time of the original adjudication.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the record, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the bounds of free evaluation of evidence.