1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. Basic facts

A. On January 2, 2007, E: (a) against the designated parties including the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) on the ground that “The attached list (hereinafter “attached Form”) 1, 2, and 3 real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “the attached list”) is owned by E; (b) movable property listed in the list 4 (hereinafter “the movable of this case”) are owned by the Plaintiff, etc.; (c) the Plaintiff (the Defendant of this case) delivers the building listed in the list 1(1) to the Defendant (the Plaintiff of this case); and (c) the appointed parties (the Defendant of this case) delivers the building listed in the list 1(2); (d) the Plaintiff, etc. (the Defendants of this case) delivers the building listed in the list 1(3) to the designated parties (the Defendant of this case); and (d) the Plaintiff, etc. (the Defendants of this case) delivers the building indicated in the list 2, 3, and (5) the Plaintiff, etc. raised the India-gu District Court in the lawsuit of this case.

B. However, on February 22, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a judgment in favor of all the judgment of the first instance court which accepted all the Defendant’s claims for intervention in the succession of the provisional execution (hereinafter “the judgment of the first instance court of the case”), on the ground that “the Defendant purchased the instant real estate and the instant movable property from E on January 15, 2007, and acquired its ownership.”

C. Accordingly, on September 17, 2007, the plaintiff et al. filed an appeal against the part of the claim in the first instance judgment in the prior extradition case, and filed an application for suspension of compulsory execution against the judgment in the first instance court in the prior extradition case, and on September 20, 2007, the plaintiff et al. decided that "the plaintiff et al. shall suspend compulsory execution until the appellate court rendered a judgment in the prior extradition case on the condition that the plaintiff et al. deposit KRW 25,00,000 as security" ( Daegu District Court Young District Court Young-gu Branch Branch Branch Branch 2007Kagi45) and on October 1, 2007, the plaintiff et al. applied for suspension of compulsory execution against the judgment in the first instance court in the prior extradition case.