1. The judgment of the first instance, including the succession participation in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

Plaintiff’s instant case.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 16, 2010, the Plaintiff, who was the owner of each land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 6 (hereinafter “instant land”) issued a contract for the new construction work (hereinafter “instant contract”) of each building listed in the separate sheet Nos. 7 through 18 (K 102 Dong, 103 Dong Dong, hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant during the period from June 16, 201 to June 16, 201, setting the construction amount of KRW 710,00,000 and from June 16, 2010 to September 30, 2010.

B. On June 8, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the registration of initial ownership due to the commission of provisional disposition registration with respect to the instant building.

C. On January 1, 2014 and February 2, 2014 of the same year, the Plaintiff, the creditor of the Plaintiff, filed an application for auction on the instant land and buildings, and the auction procedure (the entry registration of the decision on commencing auction was completed on January 22, 2014; hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). At the instant auction procedure, the Defendant reported a lien on April 17, 2014 that he/she is entitled to exercise a lien on the instant building based on the claim of KRW 121,090,821.

In the instant auction procedure, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor purchased the instant real estate with Q and paid the purchase price on September 11, 2015.

(A) The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor transferred the shares of Q in respect of the instant building on October 14, 2015 and became a sole owner in respect of the instant building (based on recognition)

2. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor asserts that the Defendant’s subsequent appeal of this case should be dismissed as it is unlawful.

A. The relevant legal doctrine’s duplicate, original copy, etc. are served by public notice.