2. All appeals against the remaining Defendants except the Plaintiff’s equality are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 1 through 15, evidence 16-1, 2, 17 through 21, evidence 22-2, 3, 5 through 9, 11 through 15, 17 through 20, 23-1, 2, 4 through 14, 17 through 19, 22, 23, and Eul evidence 1-1, 2, 3, 4, 5-1, 2, and 6 through 8, and the testimony and the whole arguments of the witness video of the first instance trial.

A. The plaintiff's husband Kim Dong-dong et al. continued a sports business with the trade name of Hayman Co., Ltd., and continued to settle the accounts with each other. During that process, the plaintiff's refund, who was appointed as the president of the Geum River Medical Foundation (hereinafter "Medical Foundation") of the medical corporation located in 890-7, Sinsan-si culture at that time, was operated as the president of the medical corporation, which was appointed as the president of the Geum River Medical Foundation (hereinafter "Medical Foundation"), the face value of 330 million won on January 17, 1998, the due date was 30 million won on December 31, 1998, the promissorysory note as of December 31, 198, the face value of which was 30 million won on January 21, 1998, and the due date was issued on March 23, 1998, and then delivered to Kim Dong-dong.

B. However, as of February 198, the previous District Court Decision 98Kadan1554 rendered an endorsement in the name of the plaintiff on each of the above promissory notes, and as of February 19, 1998, the previous District Court Decision 98Kadan1554 on February 19, 1998, the creditor was issued a provisional attachment order on the building of the Daesung Hospital owned by the Medical Foundation and its site. On April 29, 1998, the creditor was the creditor of the above Support 98Kahap704, the amount of the claim was 360 million won, and the amount of the claim was 360 million won, and the provisional attachment order was rejected on July 1, 200 by the Medical Foundation Federation of the Medical Foundation (the National Health Insurance Corporation comprehensively succeeded to the rights and obligations under the National Health Insurance Corporation Act). The provisional attachment order was served on each of the above promissory notes on March 3, 198.

C. On March 24, 1998, he/she assumed office as the president of the Medical Foundation and took various measures for the normalization of the management of the Daesung Hospital. At that time, he/she continued to work in cooperation with the Defendant Male-si, Do-young, Lee Jong-young, Lee Ho-young, Lee Ho-young, Lee Ho-young, Lee Ho-su, Park Jong-su, Park Jong-chul, Park Jae-sung, Lee Jong-sung, Lee Jong-sung, Lee Jong-sung, Lee Jong-sung, Lee Jong-sung, Lee Jong-sung, Lee, Lee Jong-sung, Lee, Lee Jong-sung, Lee, Lee in a manner that consented to a series of measures, such as return of regular bonus on April 14, 1998, reduction of wages by 10%, and the unpaid circulation period. However, despite the above efforts, the Medical Foundation had deteriorated the management situation, and the 103 staff members of the Geum River Hospital including the above Defendants did not receive the total of 103 won from February 2, 1998, 296.

D. The Medical Insurance Federation deposited KRW 212,738,340 of the Medical Foundation’s medical expenses liability obligations with respect to the Medical Foundation as a gold No. 1320 in 198, in addition to the Plaintiff’s aforementioned provisional attachment against the medical foundation’s claim for medical expenses, and received a dividend of KRW 20,585,970 as the provisional attachment obligee on October 16, 1998.

E. After having taken office as the president of the Medical Foundation on August 1998, the high image applied for the commencement of composition as Jeonju District Court 98Da25 for the purpose of the rehabilitation of Taesung Hospital through the composition procedure. The decision of approval of composition was made on December 28, 1998, and the above decision of approval became final and conclusive on January 15, 199. The Plaintiff consented to the following terms of composition in the composition procedure as of August 18, 1998. The Plaintiff shall be exempted from the total face value of two promissorysory notes endorsed by the Medical Foundation, 360,000 won, and repaid the remaining 180,000 won. The interest accrued at the end of December every five years after the date of approval of composition became final and conclusive, and the Plaintiff shall be exempt from the payment of each promissory note issued by the Medical Foundation regardless of the amount of credit already accrued or in the future. The Plaintiff shall be exempt from the payment of each of the aforesaid promissorysory notes within 160,000,000 won.

F. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 20,585,970 as above, but did not have a title of debt to the Medical Foundation. As such, on February 19, 1999, the Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan agreement with the agent of the Medical Foundation as follows, and a notary public entered into a deed as to the above under the No. 696 of the Military Joint Law Office 1999. The date of repayment was February 26, 1999: “The Medical Foundation borrowed KRW 360,000 from the Plaintiff on January 17, 1998, and the date of repayment was February 26, 199. Where the Medical Foundation fails to perform the above loan obligations, it is recognized that there was no objection even if it was immediately subject to compulsory execution, and on February 27, 1999, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 360,000 on March 4, 205, 599.

G. On April 14, 2001, high visual images concluded a contract for the said construction work with multiple comprehensive construction companies (hereinafter referred to as “multi-unit construction companies”) in which one party is working as the representative director of the company (hereinafter referred to as “multi-unit construction”) and the construction cost as KRW 330 million for the purpose of cutting down the annex building of the first floor used by the Daesung Hospital and newly constructing the third floor building on that spot. Multi-unit construction was paid KRW 210 million out of the construction cost after completion of the said construction work on September 2001, and was not paid KRW 120 million.

아. 의료재단은, 2002. 2. 20.경 국민건강보험공단(이하 건보공단이라 한다.)에 대한 진료비청구채권 중 피고 오윤정, 지순영, 임길림, 문세민, 강수래, 박재홍, 박현주, 고금례에게 2001. 10.분, 피고 김종은, 이문기, 이혜숙, 조성민에게 2001. 11.분, 피고 오민식에게 2002. 3.분 중 별표1 순번 1 내지 12의 양수채권액 부분의 각 해당란 기재와 같은 금액을 양도하는 계약을 체결하였고, 위 각 양도통지는 2002. 2. 21. 건보공단에 송달되었다. 2002. 3. 28.경 강정기, 피고 정동호, 그리고 안병준, 이순규, 이용화, 오대환, 이현근에게 건보공단에 대한 2002년도 의료보호청구채권 중 별표1 순번 13 내지 19의 양수채권액 부분의 각 해당란 기재와 같은 금액을 양도하는 계약을 체결하였고, 위 각 양도통지는 2002. 4. 2. 건보공단에 송달되었다.{다만 정동호와 사이의 채권양도계약서(기록 제185면)상 양도금액은 3,000만원이고, 하단 부분의 채권자란 정동호의 이름 옆에 ‘402-01-47061’(이는 금광상사라는 상호로 정승호가 대표자로 되어 있는 사업자의 등록번호이다.)이라는 등록번호가 기재되어 있는데, 다음에서 보는 바와 같이 채권양도통지서상 양도채권금액은 동일하게 3,000만원이나 채권양수인이 금광메디컬(정승호)로 기재되어 있다. 그리고 이순규, 오대환과 사이의 채권양도계약서(기록 제187, 189면) 하단 채권자란에는 이순규, 오대환의 이름 옆에 극동제약 주식회사(이하 극동제약이라 한다.)와 동광제약 주식회사(이하 동광제약이라 한다.)의 법인도장이 각 날인되어 있다. 또 채권양도통지서(갑 제10호증, 기록 제183면)상 양도사항은 2001. 12.분과 2002년분 의료보호 진료비청구채권으로, 채권양수인은 ‘다승종합건설(강정기), 금광메디컬(정승호), 동양약품(안병준), 극동제약(이순규), 진양제약(이용화), 동광제약(김천문), 대경메디텍(이현근)’으로 각 기재되어 있다.} 2002. 4. 10. 강정기, 정원준, 피고 황숙현, 이용균에게 건보공단에 대한 의료보험청구채권 중 별표1 순번 20 내지 23의 양수채권액 부분의 각 해당란 기재와 같은 금액을 양도하는 계약을 체결하였고, 위 각 양도통지는 2002. 4. 10. 건보공단에 송달되었다.{다만 채권양도계약서(기록 제192 내지 195면)와 채권양도통지서(갑 제11호증, 기록 제191면)에 군산문화우체국의 2002. 4. 9.자 소인이 찍혀져 있다. 한편 이용균과 사이의 채권양도계약서(기록 제195면) 하단 채권자란에는 이용균의 이름 아래 ‘메디컬뱅크 대표이사’라 기재되어 있고, 그 끝부분에 메디컬뱅크 주식회사의 법인도장이 날인되어 있으며, 위 채권양도통지서의 순위 4번 채권양수인란에 ‘메디컬뱅크(이용균)’으로 기재되어 있다.} 2002. 4. 12.경 피고 오민식에게 건보공단에 대한 의료보험 진료비채권 중 별표1 순번 28의 양수채권액 부분의 해당란 기재와 같은 금액을 양도하는 계약을 체결하였고, 위 양도통지는 2002. 4. 15. 건보공단에 송달되었다. 2002. 4. 16.경 피고 회현농업협동조합(이하 회현농협이라 한다.)에 건보공단에 대한 의료보험 진료비채권 중 별표1 순번 29의 양수채권액 부분의 해당란 기재와 같은 금액을 양도하는 계약을 체결하였고, 위 양도통지는 2002. 4. 17. 건보공단에 송달되었다. 2002. 4. 16.경 강정기, 피고 김우겸, 서태순, 박춘태에게 건보공단에 대한 2002. 2.분 의료보험진료비 청구채권 중 별표1 순번 24 내지 27의 양수채권액 부분의 각 해당란 기재와 같은 금액을 양도하는 계약을 체결하였고, 위 양도통지는 2002. 4. 17. 건보공단에 송달되었다. 위와 같은 채권양도의 근거가 되는 의료재단에 대한 채권의 내용은 피고 오윤정, 지순영, 임길림, 문세민, 강수래, 박재홍, 박현주, 고금례, 김종은, 이문기, 이혜숙, 조성민, 오민식은 퇴직금(다만 오민식의 퇴직금은 대성병원의 직원 김종민, 남상금, 김순옥, 서동엽, 홍용기, 정동순, 김규연, 이경화 등이 지급받지 못한 퇴직금을 합산한 금액이다.)이고, 피고 다승건설은 공사대금이며, 피고 정동호, 주식회사 대경메디텍(이하 대경메디텍이라 한다.), 주식회사 메디에이스(이하 메디에이스라 한다.), 그리고 주식회사 메디컬뱅크는 의료기대금이고, 피고 주식회사 동양약품(이하 동양약품이라 한다.), 극동제약, 진양제약 주식회사(이하 진양제약이라 한다.), 동광제약은 의약품대금이며, 피고 황숙현, 김우겸은 유류대금, 피고 회현농협, 서태순, 박춘태는 쌀, 산소 등 대성병원에 공급한 물품의 대금이다.

I. On April 16, 2002, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against compulsory execution based on the above No. 2002T No. 452 on the No. 339,414,030 (the amount obtained by deducting the above dividends of KRW 20,585,970 from the amount of KRW 360 million) on the No. 360,414,030 (the amount obtained by deducting the above dividends of KRW 20,585,970). On the other hand, the medical foundation received an order of seizure and assignment of all medical expenses claims, such as health insurance and medical benefits expenses to be received from the Dried Corporation. The above order became final and conclusive on May 11, 2002. On the other hand, the medical foundation filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the above No. 2002,603, which became final and conclusive on November 14, 2002, which became final and conclusive on the building site of the hospital.

B. On August 16, 2002, the Defendant deposited KRW 186,674,690, totaling KRW 172,478,980, totaling KRW 172,478,980, and KRW 359,153,670, and KRW 10,768,550, under the above support No. 1828, Nov. 22, 2002, the sum totaling KRW 79,30,304,04, and KRW 438,304,680,04, and KRW 68,550,00, total sum of the medical care benefits expenses and health insurance expenses, as the sum of KRW 1828,02, and KRW 10,78,535,49,04,00.

(k) At the time of the closure of the Daesung Hospital, 52 employees were not paid the total amount of 67,847,190 won in arrears and the total amount of 131,987,89,080 won in arrears as stated in the statement on the statement on the amount of money and valuables unpaid by individuals in attached Table 2, and the total amount of 131,987,89,890 won in arrears. Meanwhile, Defendant Haju, Haju, Lee Jong-young, Lee Jong-young, Lee Ho-young, Park Jong-young, Park Jae-gu, Park Jae-gu, Park Jae-gu, Lee Jong-gu, Lee Jong-sung, Lee Jong-sik-sik, Lee Jong-sung, Lee Jong-sung, and Park Jong-sung, Lee was investigated as substitute payment at the Gun Labor Office around August 28, 202 under the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, and received a retirement payment from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service for the last two months and two months in accordance with the Wage Claim Guarantee Act.

T. On September 18, 2002, the Jeonju District Court revoked the ruling of approval of composition on the ground that the Medical Foundation neglected to fulfill the conditions of composition without justifiable grounds and it is recognized that it has no intent or ability to fulfill the conditions of composition in the future. In addition, on October 24, 2002, in the case No. 2002Hahap5, the medical foundation declared bankrupt and abolished the bankruptcy at the same time, and the above ruling of bankruptcy was finalized on November 24, 2002.

(m) In the distribution procedure commenced in accordance with the above 202TA47 and 2002TA687 (combined) with respect to the above medical care benefit costs and health care benefit costs deposited by the Korea Construction Bank, the Defendants participated in the distribution procedure as a transferee creditor, respectively, except the Plaintiff’s entire creditor, and the Defendant’s only the Defendant’s only (the transferee-creditor is a merk Bank Co., Ltd., whose representative director is acting as the transferee). The above support amount was 438,304,680 won to be actually distributed on June 5, 2003, which was first distributed to the Defendants and the Mek Bank Co., Ltd., the remaining Defendants except the Defendant’s share of KRW 128,450,050, which was distributed as stated in the corresponding column of attached Table 1, and the Plaintiff stated an objection against the said distribution.

2. Whether the lawsuit against the equal use of the defendant is lawful

The plaintiff asserts that the distribution of 5 million won in the distribution procedure at Jeonju District Court Jeonju District Court No. 2002 Taz. 447 and 2002 Taz. 687 (combined) was unfair on the premise that the distribution of 5 million won in the distribution procedure was made.

그러나 앞서 본 바와 같이 의료재단과 이용균 사이의 2002. 4. 10.자 채권양도계약서 하단 채권자란에 이용균으로 기재되어 있지만, 그 이름 아래 ‘메디컬뱅크 대표이사’라 기재되어 있고, 이어서 그 끝부분에 메디컬뱅크 주식회사의 법인도장이 날인되어 있으며, 채권양도통지서의 채권양수인란에 ‘메디컬뱅크(이용균)’으로 기재되어 있다. 더욱이 배당표(갑 제1호증)상 배당을 받은 채권자도 메디컬뱅크 주식회사(기록 제18면)이다. 위 인정사실에 의하면, 피고 이용균은 메디컬뱅크 주식회사의 대표이사로 재직하고 있을 뿐이고, 위 배당절차에서 500만원을 배당받은 채권자는 메디컬뱅크 주식회사라 할 것이므로, 이 사건 배당이의의 소 중 위 배당절차에서 배당을 받은 바가 없는 피고 이용균을 상대로 구하는 부분은 피고 적격이 없어 부적법하다고 할 것이다.

3. Determination as to the claim against the remaining Defendants except the Defendant’s equality

A. Whether it is a false bond

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The Defendants’ claim against the medical foundation, which is the premise for the remainder of the Defendants’ claim to be acquired by the Defendants except the Defendant’s equality, is a false claim that is not actually held. Therefore, the said Defendants’ claim assignment of each of the instant claims is unreasonable.

(2) Determination

As seen earlier, as to the medical foundation at the time of the assignment of each of the instant claims as seen earlier, Defendant Male-gu, Dok-young, Yek-gu, Link-gu, Link-gu, Link-gu, Park Jae-gu, Park Jae-gu, Park Jae-gu, Park Jong-gu, Park Jong-gu, Park Jong-gu, Lee Jong-gu, Lee Jong-sik-gu, Lee Jong-sik-gu, Lee In-sik-si, the claim for retirement benefits, the claim for the construction cost, the claim for the medical cost, the claim for the medical cost, and the claim for the medical cost, and the claim for the medical cost, the drug price, the extreme drugs, the extreme medication, the Dok-dong, the claim for the fuel price, the claim for the purchase price for the goods such as rice and mountain products, and the claim for the purchase price for the goods such as the Defendant Ha

According to the facts acknowledged above, Defendant Male, Male, Domin, Domine, Domine, Park Jae-gu, Park Jae-gu, Park Jae-gu, Park Jae-gu, Park Jae-gu, Park Jae-gu, Lee Jong-gu, Lee Jong-young, Lee Jong-young, Lee Ho-young, Lee Ho-young, Lee Ho-young, Lee Ho-young, Lee Ho-young, Lee Ho-young, and Park Jong-sik was an employee working in a relatively long-term institution, and the Medical Foundation's final default on the payment of the remainder after deducting the retirement allowance entitled to preferential reimbursement from their retirement allowance for the period of his service (However, the retirement allowance for other employees is included in the claim that Defendant Ma-sik acquired by Defendant Ma-sik, Park Jong-young, Park Jong-young, Park Jae-gu, Park Jae-gu, Lee, Lee Jong-sung, Lee, Lee Jong-sung, Lee Ho-sung, Lee Ho-sung, Lee Ho-sung, Lee Ho-sik, Lee Ho-sik, and Park Jong-sik's claim that this claim is false.

B. Whether the decision of provisional seizure of April 29, 1998 remains in force

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

On April 29, 198, the Plaintiff received a decision of provisional attachment of the medical foundation's claim for medical expenses on the basis of each of the Promissory Notes in this case, and the above provisional attachment decision did not have been revoked after the execution was completed at that time. Meanwhile, the above provisional attachment became null and void due to the decision of approval of composition, but the above provisional attachment became null and void upon cancellation of the above provisional attachment order. The above provisional attachment order was issued on February 19, 199 upon cancellation of the above provisional attachment order. The above order was finalized on April 16, 2002. The above order became final and conclusive on May 11, 2002. Accordingly, claims on promissory Notes, which serve as the basis of the above provisional attachment and assignment order, are claims identical to the above monetary loan contract's claim on the basis of the above provisional attachment and assignment order. Therefore, even if the assignment of claims between the medical foundation and the Defendants other than the Defendant No. 1998, the above provisional attachment order becomes null and void before the above notification and assignment order becomes void.

(2) Determination

As seen earlier, the medical foundation borrowed KRW 360 million from the Plaintiff on January 17, 1998, which was after the decision to authorize the composition of this case became final and conclusive on February 19, 199, and entered into a monetary loan agreement with the Plaintiff on February 26, 1999 with the maturity date. This is as follows: (a) the amount is the same, but the composition obligation subject to the limitation of composition is changed by the new agreement after the composition is approved; (b) the Plaintiff entered into a new rehabilitation agreement with the medical foundation; (c) accordingly, the obligations of the medical foundation based on the endorsement of each of the Promissory Notes were extinguished. Accordingly, since the obligation of each of the Promissory Notes became final and conclusive on April 29, 1998 and the obligation of the medical foundation based on the endorsement of each of the Promissory Notes, which became the basis for the provisional attachment decision, cannot be deemed as the same obligation under the monetary loan agreement, which became the basis for the attachment and assignment order of claims on April 16, 2002.

(c) Effects of acts beyond the ordinary business scope without permission of the court from among composition procedures;

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

At the time of the transfer of each claim of this case, the composition procedure was in progress, and it is not effective because it did not obtain the permission of the court with respect to each assignment of claim that does not fall under the ordinary scope of business. In particular, the Medical Foundation transferred a claim of KRW 90 million in total under the pretext that it ordered the construction of the 3rd floor building without the permission of the court and paid the construction cost.

(2) Determination

The composition procedure is terminated by the final and conclusive decision to authorize composition, and thereafter, the obligor of composition restores the right to dispose of the property and only the implementation of the conditions of composition takes place. Thus, even if the assignment of each of the claims in this case and the above construction do not fall under the ordinary business scope, the act that does not fall under the ordinary business scope conducted without permission from the court can be subject to the exercise of the right to set aside within the procedure, and the act of the obligor of composition with the right to dispose of the property does not become null and void as a matter of course. Furthermore, the composition procedure is already canceled and completed until the related bankruptcy procedure, and there is no room for the plaintiff, not the composition creditor, to exercise the right to set aside under the Composition Act. Thus

(d) Whether retirement allowance claims are paid in duplicate or in duplicate;

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

Defendant 1, the Defendant and the Medical Foundation were in office at the time of acquiring each of the claims in this case, and thus did not constitute an obligation or obligation for retirement allowances between the Defendants and the Medical Foundation, and even if the purport of settling the family retirement allowances in advance is to pay the retirement allowances in advance, it does not fall under the ordinary business scope. The Defendants, as shown in the attached Table 3, receive the retirement allowances and distribute them according to each of the instant assignment of claims. In particular, Defendant 1’s awareness is an excessive amount in light of the service period.

(2) Determination

With respect to retirement allowances clearly paid in the future, it cannot be deemed that the obligation does not come into effect during his/her employment, and the validity of the act that does not fall under the ordinary scope of business is as seen earlier. Furthermore, as seen earlier, the claim that Defendant Oral Food acquired is included in the total amount of retirement allowances not paid to employees of the Daesung Hospital, Kim Jong-si, Southern, Kim Jong-ok, Kim Jong-ok, Kim Jong-ok, Kim Jong-ok, Hong-dong, Kim Jong-si, and Lee Jong-sung. Therefore

(e) Effects of defective assignment of claims;

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The assignee under the assignment contract between the medical foundation and the Jeongho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho.

(2) Determination

As seen earlier, in light of the fact that the contract on the assignment of claims between the medical foundation and the refining and the agreement on the assignment of claims are the same as the amount of the assignment of claims, the business operator’s registration number is indicated next to the fixed title of the contract on the assignment of claims, the name of gold-luminous company, and the assignee of the credit is indicated as the gold-durgical name, and it seems that the claim transferee of the notification on the assignment of claims was only a clerical error in the indication, but the same is the same as the amount of the assignment of claims between the medical foundation and the same mining foundation, and the amount of the notification on the assignment of claims is identical to the amount of the assignment of claims in the name of the substitute exchange in the creditor column of the contract on the assignment of claims, and the amount of the notification on the assignment of claims is affixed by the head of the legal entity in the same manner as the assignee of the credit, and the above notification on the assignment of claims cannot be seen as a legitimate violation of the law in light of the fact that the above notification on the assignment of claims cannot be seen as the above portion of claims.

F. The Plaintiff asserts that the assignment contract between the Medical Foundation and the Defendant Multilock Construction, Stoppy, Dymnaco, Dymnaco, Jymnaco, Dymnaco, Dymnaco, Dymnaco, Dymnaco, Dymnaco, and Dymnaco, stated the above amount as “the above amount from among the claims for medical care in 2002,” and that each of the above claims was stated as “the above amount from among the claims for medical care expenses in 2001 and 202,” and that this portion should be excluded from the above Defendants’ dividends. However, since the Gymnaco did not separately specify the medical care expenses for December 201, 201, and there was no proof as to this point, the above assertion is without merit.

G. Each of the instant claims transfer and takeover between the medical foundation and the other Defendants except for the Defendant’s equality is false declaration of intention, or the medical foundation expressed its intent as a bad will, which the Defendants knew or could have known. However, the aforementioned assertion is without merit, on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge this point.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case, the part against the defendant's equality is unlawful, and the remaining defendants' claims against the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. Thus, since the part against the defendant's equality as to the conclusion different from the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, this part is revoked, and the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant's equality as to the revoked part is dismissed, and the remaining part against the defendants is justified, and it is so dismissed as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judge Lee Young-gu (Presiding Judge)