1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant shall be dismissed.

3...

1. The reasons for this part of this Court are as follows: (a) each “Defendant Gwangju Livestock Cooperative” in Section 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16 of the first instance judgment shall be deemed as “Codefendant Gwangju Livestock Cooperative in the first instance”; and (b) the “Defendants” in Section 17 of the same part shall be deemed as the corresponding part of the first instance judgment except for the case where “Defendant and Codefendant Gwangju Livestock Cooperative in the first instance” are deemed as “Defendant and the first instance judgment,” and therefore, they shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Although the fact that the registration of the establishment of a neighboring real estate was cancelled without any cause as to the plaintiff's ex officio judgment as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit against the defendant is not immediately extinguished, the mortgage existing in the sold real estate is naturally extinguished (Article 91(2) of the Civil Execution Act), since the mortgage existing in the sale of the real estate is naturally extinguished when the real estate was sold during the auction procedure (Article 91(2) of the Civil Execution Act). Thus, if the auction procedure was conducted with respect to the real estate, which is the object of the neighboring mortgage, after the cancellation of the registration of the

Therefore, in the course of a lawsuit seeking the implementation of the procedure for registration of recovery of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, which was cancelled without any cause, if the auction procedure was in progress and the decision of permission for sale was finalized, and if the purchaser paid the sale price in full, the right to collateral security established on the sold real estate is naturally extinguished. Therefore, there is no legal interest to seek implementation of the procedure for registration of recovery of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, which was cancelled without any further cause (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da28025, Dec. 11, 2014). In full view of the evidence No. 10, No. 10, No. 13, and No. 18, J, the Defendant’s creditor, applied for a compulsory auction of each of the instant real estate, as a result of applying for a compulsory auction by the Suwon District Court on September 18, 2015.