1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The request for intervention by the independent party of this case shall be dismissed.

3.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the following items in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and except for the addition of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the legitimacy of participation by an independent party and the judgment of the court of first instance as to the new argument of this court under Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 3 below, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, it

The third part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “G and ten parcels,” the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance, consisting of “G and 10 parcels,” respectively, with “G and 10 parcels,” and “construction,” with “construction,” respectively.

The third and fourth instances of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as the " condominiums") shall be followed by cutting the " condominiums" into the "mixed buildings" (hereinafter referred to as the "mixed buildings").

2. Determination on the legitimacy of intervention by an independent party

(a) Persons who are standing to sue in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution shall be limited to the creditors or debtors who have attended on the date of distribution and have raised an objection under substantive nature as to the distribution schedule; and

(Article 154 of the Civil Execution Act). A lawsuit of demurrer against distribution filed by a creditor who did not raise an objection on the date of distribution is unlawful.

B. According to the purport of the entire pleadings, the independent party intervenor was found to have failed to appear on the date of distribution that was proceeded with on August 30, 2016 at the instant auction procedure, and thus, the application for intervention by the independent party of this case was unlawful since it was filed by a person who has no standing to sue in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution.

However, inasmuch as an independent party intervenor had legal interest in the outcome of the instant lawsuit as a subordinate mortgagee of the instant real estate through the preparatory brief dated December 18, 2017, on the date of the second pleading of this Court, the independent party intervenor asserted to the effect that he/she recognized the status of the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor as a lawsuit and changed the status of the lawsuit. According to the purport of the evidence No. 10-1 through No. 3 of the evidence No. 10-3, the independent party intervenor’s assertion to the purport