All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, determined that the registration of initial acquisition of the instant building and the name of the owner of the instant building changed from C to B via D, and that the instant registration of initial ownership was not immediately null and void on the grounds that the registration of initial acquisition of the instant building was completed in the name of B, the owner of the instant building was the owner of the instant building at the time of the provisional attachment registration upon the request of the court for provisional attachment by the Defendant SB Savings Bank (hereinafter “Defendant SB Savings Bank”) upon the request of the provisional attachment by the Defendant SB Savings Bank (hereinafter “Defendant SB Savings Bank”) and the provisional attachment registration was completed in the name of B, the owner of the instant building was the owner of the instant building at the time of the provisional attachment registration.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles on the acquisition and disposal of ownership of new buildings and Article 187 of

2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below as to the third ground of appeal in light of the records, the court below is just in holding that it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendants knew that the change of the name of each owner of the building of this case was caused by false conspiracy, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of the rules of logic and experience and the principle of free evaluation of evidence, nor violation

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, concluded a false agreement on change of the name of each of the above building owners with intent to escape compulsory execution.