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

A. The real estate stated in the attached Tables 2 and 3 among the instant lawsuits.

1. Basic facts

A. The reasons for this part are as follows: (a) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Paragraph (1) (the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act), with the exception of adding or adding the same as the entries in this part; (b) the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is added or adding, is as follows: (a) the part of the 22 conduct and the part of the 3 and 4 conduct, respectively, shall be deleted.

The first instance judgment No. 4, 12 of the first instance judgment “The instant agreement” was followed by the following: “The Defendant purchased 3,000 of each land of this case and purchased 3,000 square meters, and only the name of the flag such as the name of the Plaintiff and I, and the legal effect following the sale was intended to revert directly to the Defendant himself. Therefore, the agreement of this case was signed by the Defendant.”

The following shall be added at the bottom of the first instance judgment No. 5, 4, at the fourth level:

[3] On October 26, 2017, Daejeon District Court Decision 2017Ga group 223580 (Ga) filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and the Defendant against Daejeon District Court Decision 2017Ga group 223580, which held that the Plaintiff’s right to collateral security was extinguished on September 6, 2004 as to the instant dry field and the Defendant’s right to collateral security was cancelled on October 17, 2018. The above court held that the Plaintiff’s right to collateral security was extinguished on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s title was based on a trust agreement, and thus, the registration of establishment of collateral security right cannot be seen as being void on the ground that the Plaintiff’s right to collateral security right was extinguished on the ground that the Plaintiff’s right to collateral security right and the Defendant’s right to collateral security right was extinguished on the ground that the registration of establishment of title transfer under the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s right to collateral security right was not fulfilled on the instant dry field.