1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation as to this case is as follows: (a) the court's explanation as to this case is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the deletion of "may refuse" from "real estate," No. 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 11 and addition of the following contents. Thus, it shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. If a seller of the substance added fails to cancel the registration of the establishment of a collateral on the subject matter of sale, the buyer may refuse to pay the purchase price to the extent of the risk. Furthermore, the buyer may seek against the seller to pay the remainder after deducting the secured debt from the purchase price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da40195, Feb. 22, 2007) for the registration of ownership transfer at the same time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da6554, May 10, 196). The purchase price for which payment may be refused is limited to the amount where the secured debt amount of the right to collateral is confirmed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da6554, May 10, 1996). As such, the Defendants did not submit any material verifying the actual secured debt amount of the right to collateral security at the time of the closing of argument in the trial of this case.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and all appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.