The judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows.

A. As to the real estate stated in the separate sheet among the instant lawsuit, the first instance court held.

1. The reasons for this part of the facts of recognition are as follows: “Defendant D” in the end of the 8th sentence below the third part of the judgment of the first instance, with the exception of “Defendant D, January 15, 2019” as “Defendant D, January 15, 2018.” As such, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In a case where a claim for cancellation of a conclusive claim transfer contract concluded between B and the defendant company and the subsequent purchaser among the lawsuit in this case, and a lawsuit for cancellation of a pledge contract concluded between the defendant company and the defendant D is filed against the subsequent purchaser, the effect of cancellation is only the relative relationship between the creditor and the subsequent purchaser, and it does not affect the legal relationship between the debtor and the subsequent purchaser. In this case, the act subject to cancellation is limited to the act conducted between the debtor and the beneficiary, and the juristic act between the beneficiary and the subsequent purchaser is not subject to cancellation (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da21923, Aug. 30, 2004). According to the above facts of recognition, inasmuch as the contract between B and the defendant company seeking cancellation is a juristic act between the beneficiary and the subsequent purchaser, and the subsequent purchaser is a juristic act between the subsequent purchaser and the right to pledge contract between the defendant company and the subsequent purchaser, and thus, the subsequent purchaser and the subsequent purchaser are subject to cancellation of each contract in this case.

3. Determination on the instant mortgage contract concluded between E and B

A. The intent of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the mortgage contract of this case between E and B is null and void as a false conspiracy, notwithstanding the absence of an actual obligation.

This case, even if not, is the case.