1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's successor's lawsuit.

1. The basic facts;

2. The Parties’ assertion;

3. The reasoning for the judgment on the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is as follows: (a) the reasoning for this part of the judgment of the first instance court is as follows: (b) “A case of the said District Court F shall be dealt with in duplicate with the case of the said District Court Qua, which was in progress,” and (c) the fourth parallel “358 million won” shall be deemed as “35.8 million won”; and (d) the seventh parallel “the same day” shall be deemed as “ October 2, 2013,” and the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except that the reasoning for the judgment shall be stated as follows:

(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 4. We examine ex officio whether the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor's lawsuit is legitimate.

With respect to each of the instant real estate on October 28, 2013, the supplementary registration for the transfer of the right to collateral was completed in the future of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor terminated the mortgage contract on April 24, 2014, which was in the process of the first instance trial, and cancelled the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security on the same day, and withdraws the application for voluntary auction on the same day, and then cancelled the registration of the decision to commence voluntary auction on May 2, 2014, and the facts that B and C sold each of the instant real estate to R on April 22, 2014 and completed the registration of the transfer of ownership on April 25, 2014 are apparent in the record.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff's successor did not have any legal interest in seeking confirmation of the existence of the right of retention against the defendant, since the contract to establish the right of collateral is terminated and the establishment of the right of collateral is cancelled.

Therefore, the lawsuit by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor is unlawful.

5. The conclusion is that the lawsuit of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor is unlawful, and thus, the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance is just, but the part against the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor is unfair. Since the part against the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor in the judgment of first instance is revoked and the part against the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor in the judgment of first instance is dismissed, and the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff is dismissed.