The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

After finding the facts as stated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected all the allegations that the Defendant’s seizure of the instant secured claim against the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, i.e., the Defendant’s assertion that the instant secured claim against the instant secured claim was made after the instant secured claim and the secured claim were transferred to the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, and that the Defendant’s seizure cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, and that the Defendant’s seizure is null and void due to the lack of tax claims, etc., and thus,

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, in so determining, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the subsidiary nature of a mortgage, the establishment and effect of a seizure, and the legal doctrine on

Therefore, the appeal by the plaintiff succeeding intervenor is 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.