2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

The first instance court partly accepted the plaintiff's claims against the defendants and D.

The Plaintiff appealed to the part against Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) and the Defendants appealed to the part against which they lost.

With respect to the plaintiff's claim against D, the part of the judgment of the first instance became final and conclusive separately because both parties did not appeal against it.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s petition of appeal was issued on January 7, 2019 on the ground that the order to dismiss the petition of appeal was not implemented within the deadline for correction, such as recognition. The Plaintiff appealed against the above order to dismiss the petition of appeal, but the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed on March 18, 2019 at the appellate court. The decision of the appellate court became final and conclusive on March 28, 2019.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the defendants' objection.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is citing it as it is by the main text of

[Supplementary or additional parts] Parts 3, 2, and 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be considered as “building stones blasting stones”.

Under the third part of the judgment of the first instance, Defendant I’s “Defendant I” in the sixth sentence shall be deemed to be Defendant C.

"90,000,000 won" in Part 9 of the first instance judgment shall be deemed to be "90,000,000".

In the fourth part of the judgment of the first instance, the letter of undertaking No. 13 is deemed to read “written undertaking (as it is recognized that the following signature of the defendant C is made by the result of the appraisal by the appraiser L of the first instance trial and the appraisal by the appraiser of the first instance trial, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been made)”.

In light of the fact that “Defendant C” in the first instance judgment is possessed by the Plaintiff in the front of “Defendant C” in the fourth instance judgment, it shall be viewed that the Plaintiff had the instant agreement (Evidence A 2).