2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

purport, purport, and.

Since only the defendant appealed, the scope of this Court's adjudication is limited to the cited part among the claims against the defendant of the plaintiff A and the claim against the plaintiff B, C, and D.

2. The reasoning for this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition as set forth in paragraph (3) below, and thus, this case shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The part of the decision of the court of first instance, which is written or added, shall be subject to the 3rd "Contract" with "Article 2-1" under the 4th part below.

The following shall be added to the sixth 14th of the first instance judgment:

Even if F had the authority to act on behalf of the Defendant, the Plaintiffs knew or could have known the fact that F abused the power of representation for F or G, which is not the Defendant, and thus, by applying the proviso of Article 107 of the Civil Act mutatis mutandis, each of the instant contracts is null and void pursuant to the application of the proviso of Article 107 of the Civil Act. The 6th judgment of the first instance court “(2)” as “(3).”

The following shall be added next to the last 8th instance judgment:

B. F’s recognition of abuse of proxy authority: (a) the following circumstances are acknowledged by adding the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence admitted as above; (b) the seal of the Defendant was affixed to each of the instant investment contracts at the time when the Plaintiffs entered into each of the instant investment contracts; (c) the form and content of each of the instant contracts are almost the same; and (d) the Plaintiffs remitted money to the F or G deposit account; (e) however, the money wired to the F’s deposit account was delivered to the Defendant; and (e) the Defendant and G, whose name is similar, for