The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below as to the ground of appeal No. 1, the court below acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence, and determined that the plaintiff, the defendant joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "participating"), the Solomon Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter referred to as the " Solomon Mutual Savings Bank"), and Memon Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Memon Construction"), the priority beneficiary, and Solomon Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter referred to as the "Memon Construction"), will exercise the right to consent to termination of the trust contract, until loans within the scope of the intervenor's profit-making premium, which are the first priority beneficiary under the trust contract of this case, are fully paid. The court below held that the plaintiff, the first beneficiary of this case, and Solomon Mutual Savings Bank, shall exercise the right to consent to termination of the trust contract, and the Melomon Mutual Savings Bank shall sell real estate with the consent to termination of the trust contract, and pay the intervenor's loan to the intervenor as the sales price.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on interpretation of juristic acts and preferential

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below as to the ground of appeal No. 2, in light of the above agreement, the court below held that the intervenor may exercise preferential right only within the scope of the remaining profit premium, excluding the disposal price of the 4 units of this case, from the original profit premium. The defendant who acquired the above right to benefit from the intervenor's transfer of the above right to benefit exceeding the above remaining profit premium scope