All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are appeal by Defendant C, G, H, I, and J.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the independent party intervenors, the lower court dismissed the application for intervention of the independent party based on its stated reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, although part of the reasoning of the court below is not appropriate, the court below's conclusion that did not accept the claims of the independent party intervenors is acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the requirements for intervention of the independent party

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant C, G, H, I, and J, the lower court determined that the said Defendants are liable for the registration of ownership transfer pursuant to the instant security agreement on the premise that Defendant G, H, I, I, and J purchased each of the instant real estate, and rejected the assertion that the instant security agreement was invalidated or terminated without the resolution of the board of directors.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is acceptable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the registration of real estate under the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name, Article 393 (1) of the Commercial Act, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the interruption of extinctive prescription, or by

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.