1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the plaintiffs (appointed parties) and the designated parties is modified as follows.

The court's explanation of this case is identical to the part concerning plaintiffs D, plaintiffs (appointed parties), designated parties (excluding AH, AI, M), network A, and H among the reasons of the judgment of the first instance, except for those written by the court of the first instance as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[The grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff D and the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance trial, and the fact-finding and judgment by the first instance court are recognized as legitimate even if the additional arguments and evidence were presented by this court. In particular, the Plaintiff D and the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) did not install safety facilities, such as the prevention of the reclamation work of this case at the time of the reclamation work of this case, and caused noise and malodor by performing construction work at a late time, and violated the conditions for reclamation permission, such as reclaiming, without crushinging cirth, and 3,00,00,000 won were additionally paid to the Defendants at the time of the preparation of the instant agreement, to donate 300 square meters to the village residents after the completion of the reclamation work, and there is no further evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s 13th instance court failed to implement the construction work. The Plaintiffs 1 and the heir of the Plaintiff’s 13th instance court (hereinafter “Plaintiff 13th instance court”)’s village residents.