1. Of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit, the part on the claim for cancellation of registration of each seizure against Defendant C and the part on Defendant M.

1. Of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit, the part concerning each of the claims for cancellation of the registration of seizure against Defendant C and the claim for cancellation of the registration of cancellation of the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage against

A. As to each part of the claim for cancellation registration of seizure, the Plaintiff sought against Defendant C the implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration of each attachment registration, which was completed with respect to 3/5 shares in the land listed in the attached list No. 2 and 3/5 shares in the land listed in the attached list No. 10. However, the Defendant C is not a registered titleholder of each of the above attachment registration or his/her general successor, and it is not a registered titleholder or his/her general successor, and the registration of attachment is executed at the discretion of the competent registry officer or by the court or by the commission of the competent court. Therefore, this part of the lawsuit against Defendant C seeking the implementation of each of its cancellation registration procedures against Defendant C is not a party, and is unlawful because there is no benefit of the lawsuit

B. As to the claim for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, the Plaintiff sought against the Defendant M to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, which was completed on the land listed in the [Attachment List No. 12]. However, Defendant M is not a registered titleholder of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage or his/her general successor, and thus, Defendant M is not a registered titleholder of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage or his/her general successor, and thus,

2. Determination as to each claim against Defendant A

A. On July 9, 1981, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with AO, the father of the Defendant A, to purchase KRW 166,700,00 for purchase price of KRW 336,70,00, the Plaintiff, who succeeded to the said land from AO. However, the Defendant A, who succeeded to the said land, is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the said land.