1. The plaintiff's motion to intervene shall be dismissed.

2. All of the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

3. The appeal costs.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows. The plaintiff's assertion of correction in the judgment of the court of first instance and the plaintiff's motion for participation in the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment of the following 3 and 4 to the matters asserted again in the judgment of the court of first instance and the plaintiff's motion for participation in the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance

2. The part of the judgment of the first instance court: (a) the part on the “based on the trust of July 25, 201” in Section 14 of the judgment of the first instance is deemed to be “based on the trust of July 25, 201.”

② On the 7th judgment of the first instance court, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport determines the “forest planning” as “Defendant” in the 7th judgment.

③ Since the Plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn from the trial the primary claim that was sought by the first instance court, the part of the first instance court’s 6th to 13th judgment shall be deleted.

④ In the part 14 to 10 pages 11 of the judgment of the first instance court, “the first preliminary claim” shall be deemed as “the second preliminary claim” and “the second preliminary claim” shall be deemed as “the second preliminary claim”.

3. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① filed an application against the Defendant for a provisional disposition prohibiting the disposition of collateral security against the Defendant on July 22, 2015, on the ground that there was a decision of revocation on August 25, 2016 on the ground that the preserved right does not exist after the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on August 2, 2016, which was prior to the decision of revocation, and that it is lawful to determine the Defendant as the other party as to the primary claim.

② The phrase of separate registration in this case, which was completed on the right to a site in the building No. 702 owned by the Plaintiff, shall be deleted without the need to undergo correction procedures, etc.

B. (1) First, we examine the Plaintiff’s argument regarding the primary claim.

If the existence of the right to be preserved for provisional disposition is finally and conclusively confirmed by a final judgment in the lawsuit on the merits, the provisional disposition will be cancelled.