1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff), D, E, and H are dismissed.

2. Appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that the defendants' supplementary intervenor submitted in the trial and rejected Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 15 (including provisional number) which is insufficient to recognize the defendants' and supplementary intervenor's assertion, and since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, this court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the defendants' supplementary intervenor's evidence submitted

2. A portion used for adding or cutting;

(a) 12 pages 17 of the judgment of the first instance court “B-25” shall be changed to “B-25”;

(b) 13 pages 11 to 19 of the decision of the first instance shall be taken in the following manner:

"However, Defendant J: (a) leased the above real estate from May 24, 2001, before the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 8; (b) Q was awarded a successful bid in the voluntary auction procedure applied by the mortgagee of a collective security right; and (c) comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the above evidence and evidence No. 15-1 and No. 2; (c) on January 17, 2002, theO completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring house with the maximum debt amount of KRW 1,40,000,000 and KRW 240,000,000 each of the above real estate; (d) Defendant J shall carry it over to the address of the above real estate on February 22, 2004; (e) Seoul on February 11, 2004; and (e) Q Q Q, excluding the remainder of the real estate deposit at his domicile on February 13, 2005.