1. The application for succession of this case shall be dismissed.

2. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff:

A. Defendant.

According to the evidence evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the legitimacy of the application for intervention by succession, it is recognized that the registration of additional effect on October 26, 2009 by the administrator of the Bankruptcy and Deposit Insurance Corporation of the Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) on the right to collateral security (other than Seoul Central District Court 2009, 31032), attached the right to collateral security (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) of the Defendant D Co., Ltd. as to the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”) as stated in the Disposition No. 2 of the Disposition No. 2 of this case, was made as the Chungcheong District Court No. 52817, Nov. 20, 2009.

The Intervenor succeeding to the Defendant Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor succeeding to the Defendant”) succeeded to the status of Defendant B as the obligee from the Defendant Corporation upon receipt of the execution claim of the above seizure from the Defendant Corporation on November 9, 2012 and notification of the transfer of the claim to the Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.”) on November 18, 2015.

The motion for intervention in the succession of this case was made ex officio on the legitimacy of the motion.

As stated in the registry, it refers to a person who is a right holder on a registration in the third party column of the interest in the registration under Article 57 (1) of the Registration of Real Estate Act and who is likely to suffer loss by registering cancellation thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da43753, Apr. 27, 2007, etc.). As seen earlier in the instant collateral security, as long as the additional registration of the secured claim is completed in the name of the Defendant Corporation, which is not the Defendant succeeding intervenor, in the name of the Defendant Corporation, as seen in the instant collateral security, the cancellation of the instant collateral security right is merely an interest in the registration, and there is no ground to deem that the Defendant in the instant lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the instant collateral security right as a person who has an interest in the registration and otherwise has the interest in the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor, and the Defendant in the instant lawsuit seeking the cancellation of

B. The intervenor succeeding to the defendant's family affairs takes over the executive claims against the defendant B from the defendant Corporation.