1. The motion for succession of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B shall be the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

1. As to the legitimacy of the application for intervention in the instant case, the Plaintiff sought a cancellation of the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) listed in the order 2-A against Defendant B, and sought a provisional attachment against the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) established in the Korea Mutual Saving and Finance Company and the Korea Deposit Insurance Company (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and the Defendant KAWC (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) based on the claim against Defendant B and sought a declaration of consent against the cancellation of the above right to collateral security, the succeeding intervenor filed a motion for intervention in the instant case by asserting that the Defendant Corporation succeeded to the status of provisional attachment obligee by taking over the claim against Defendant B, which is the preserved claim for the said provisional attachment, from the Defendant Corporation on September 29, 2011.

In light of the records, the succession to the right or obligation, which is the object of the lawsuit seeking participation, is subject to the requirement that the successor succeeded to the “in the continuation of the lawsuit” (Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Act and Supreme Court Decision 83Meu1027, Sept. 27, 1983). The fact that the lawsuit in this case was instituted on April 19, 2016 and a duplicate of the complaint was served on Defendant Corporation on May 4, 2016 is apparent. However, even according to the assertion itself, the successor acquired the right to the provisional seizure against the Defendant Corporation prior to the continuation of the lawsuit in this case. Thus, the successor’s application for intervention in the succession of the case is unlawful due to lack of the requirement.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. 1) The facts of recognition C are as follows: on October 27, 2004, real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) between Defendant B and Defendant B.

In order to secure the claim for the purchase price of the instant real estate, a mortgage contract concluded with the debtor C and the defendant B, which is the maximum debt amount of the instant real estate amount of KRW 39,00,000, and accordingly, the said contract is concluded.