Plaintiff (former Name: omitted prior to the name of the name) (Law Firm Il-won, Attorneys Kim Ho-eng, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1

Defendant 2 (Law Firm Shin, Attorneys Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

June 18, 2015

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Gahap3582 Decided July 24, 2014

1. The part against Defendant 1 in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's action against the defendant 1 shall be dismissed.

3. Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Nonparty’s appeal) is dismissed.

4. The plaintiff bears the total costs of appeal between the plaintiff and defendant 1, and the costs of appeal between the plaintiff and defendant 2 are borne by defendant 2.

Purport of claim

Defendant 1 performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on June 8, 2009 by the Suwon District Court Leecheon District Court, Leecheon District Court, the registry office of June 8, 2009 as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, and Defendant 2 shall pay the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint to the day of complete payment.

Purport of appeal

[2] Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant 1 is revoked. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Defendant 2] The part against Defendant 2 in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim against Defendant 2 as to the revocation part shall be dismissed.

1. Presumed factual basis

【Evidence Class 1 through 5, 20, 21, and 5 (including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply), each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. around 197, Defendant 2 purchased the land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) and Leecheon-si ( Address 1 omitted), the land listed in ( Address 2 omitted, and the land classified by land (hereinafter referred to as the “inspection site,” and separately named by land), and built the building listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 on the ground of the instant land and completed the registration of ownership transfer and the registration of ownership preservation of the instant inspection building under Defendant 2’s name.

B. Defendant 2 newly built the instant temple building and had a lot of debts owed while operating the instant temple. To resolve this, around May 2009, Defendant 2 donated the instant temple site and the instant temple building to the Plaintiff on the condition that the Plaintiff assumed obligations related to the instant temple, and agreed to operate the instant temple (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

C. In order to complete the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant temple site and the instant temple building in accordance with the instant agreement, the Plaintiff was granted a registration number for real estate registration from Leecheon-si on May 20, 2009 with the name of the instant temple ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (the Plaintiff’s birth) with respect to the instant land and the instant temple building around June 2009, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of Nonparty 2 with respect to the ( Address 1 omitted), ( Address 2 omitted) and ( Address 2 omitted) with respect to the land (hereinafter, each of the above registration of ownership transfer completed in the name of the Buddhist ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ with respect to the instant land and the instant temple building (hereinafter, “each of the instant registrations”).

D. After that, the Plaintiff was granted a loan by establishing additional right to collateral security on the instant land, temple building, and ( Address 1 omitted), but Defendant 2 demanded that the Plaintiff return the temple site, the instant temple building, and the instant temple operation right, as a result of the Plaintiff’s failure to repay some of the debts acquired pursuant to the instant agreement. Accordingly, the Plaintiff completed the additional registration of change of the registered titleholder’s indication as being changed from Nonparty 2 to Defendant 2 on November 11, 2010, on the instant land and the instant temple building, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Buddhist ○○○○○○○○○ (Representative: Defendant 2 omitted) (hereinafter “Defendant 2”). The Defendants were excluded from the subject of return, and the name of the instant building and the instant temple were omitted due to the change of the registered titleholder’s name on December 20, 2010.

E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff transferred the ownership of the instant land and the instant temple building and the instant temple land to Defendant 2; while transferring the right to operate the instant temple, Defendant 2 and Defendant 2 gave loans by way of repayment on behalf of Defendant 2, etc.; and the Plaintiff settled the interest and various expenses of loans granted to the Plaintiff for the operation of the instant temple; on October 19, 2010, Defendant 2 and Defendant 2 as Defendant 2 made a loan certificate (No. 3-1, hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) stating that Defendant 2 borrowed KRW 150 million from the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff, with Defendant 2 as Defendant 2 as Defendant 2, separately from the loan certificate, and written another loan certificate (No. 5-3, 100,000,000 won) with Defendant 2’s personal seal affixed thereon, and Defendant 2 and Defendant 2’s personal seal affixed to Defendant 2,000,000 won.

F. After that, on June 13, 2011, the Plaintiff transferred to Nonparty 3 a claim of KRW 150 million based on the loan certificate (Evidence No. 5-3 of the evidence No. 5) written by Defendant 2, which was indicated by the “Defendant 2, the Plaintiff,” and notified Defendant 2 of the assignment of the claim. On June 14, 201, the notification of the assignment of the claim reached Defendant 2.

G. Nonparty 3 brought an action against the △△△, based on the claim that was taken over from the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of KRW 150 million and damages for delay thereof. However, on May 31, 2012, Defendant 2 was operating the instant temple as an individual inspection; the instant inspection was not registered as an inspection belonging to a specific religious group; each of the instant registrations was completed in the name of the non-indicted ○○○○○○○, which was for the purpose of tax reduction; and there is no rules or organization regarding the operation of the instant temple; and it cannot be deemed that there was an independent right entity as an incorporated foundation or association that is not a legal entity, and thus, Nonparty 3 brought an action against the non-party 3 on the non-party 3, who is not a legal entity, and thus dismissed the appeal (Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na2608, May 31, 2012). However, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was unlawful (Seoul High Court Decision 20130).501).

H. On May 20, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, and received again the previous claim that was transferred from Nonparty 3 to Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 3 notified to Defendant 2 on May 20, 2014, and on May 21, 2014, the notification of the assignment of the claim reached Defendant 2.

2. Issues of the instant case

A. As to the claim against the defendant 2

(1) The existence and amount of the settlement agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant 2

Whether the instant settlement payment agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2 constitutes an expression of intent by fraud or coercion

Then, whether the Plaintiff is a legitimate right holder of the claim for the settlement money under the instant settlement money payment agreement

x) Whether it is against the good faith principle or the principle of equity to seek the payment of the settlement amount under the instant settlement agreement

B. Whether the lawsuit against Defendant 1 is lawful (ex officio determination)

3. The judgment of this Court

A. As to the claim against the defendant 2

(1) The existence and amount of the settlement agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant 2

【Plaintiff’s Claim】

The plaintiff, while returning the land of this case and the buildings of this case and the right to operate the temple, requested the settlement of accounts by presenting the details of the loans that the plaintiff lent to the defendant 2, and the amount of KRW 270 million including the operating expenses and the interest on loans that the plaintiff spent during the period of operating the inspection of this case. Accordingly, the defendant 2 agreed to settle accounts with the payment of KRW 120 million including the amount of KRW 50 million paid to the plaintiff on the part of the plaintiff and to pay the remaining amount of KRW 150 million to the plaintiff, and prepared a loan certificate stating that the amount of KRW 150 million, which is the same as the above settlement amount, was borrowed to the plaintiff.

【Defendant 2’s Answer】

Defendant 2 did not borrow funds from the Plaintiff as stated in the instant loan certificate, and if the Plaintiff was returned the land, the building, the right to operate the inspection, etc. of this case, and the Plaintiff was paid by Defendant 2 or the Plaintiff for the operation of the inspection of this case, Defendant 2 agreed to settle this account and pay the settlement money to the Plaintiff within the limit of KRW 150 million with the loan certificate drawn up by Defendant 2. Defendant 2 or the Plaintiff actually spent for the operation of the inspection of this case is merely KRW 44,920,780.

[Judgment]

㈎ 증거(갑 제15, 19, 22, 23, 29호증, 을 제6, 11, 14, 16, 18, 21호증)에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 다음과 같은 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

① From November 2006, before Defendant 2 received the instant inspection’s operating right from Defendant 2, the Plaintiff loaned funds to Defendant 2 by way of repaying the debt owed by Defendant 2 in the course of operating the instant inspection.

② While Defendant 2 received a demand from Defendant 2 to return the temple site, the building of this case and the right to operate the instant temple from July 2010, when the Plaintiff was operating the instant temple, the Plaintiff demanded Defendant 2 to settle the total amount of KRW 270,985,104, including the interest of the instant temple loans and various expenses, etc. for the instant temple’s operation.

③ On October 19, 2010, Defendant 2: (a) borrowed funds from Defendant 1 on September 28, 2010, and remitted KRW 50 million from Defendant 2 to Nonparty 4’s mother account; (b) during the Plaintiff’s operation of the instant temple, Defendant 2 agreed to take over the obligations for the loan amounting to KRW 50 million out of the loan granted from △△ Credit Cooperative; and (c) the Plaintiff’s side offsets Defendant 2’s obligation for the purchase amount of KRW 20 million against Defendant 2’s obligation for the settlement of accounts against the Plaintiff; (d) Defendant 2 agreed to pay KRW 270 million from the settlement amount demanded by the Plaintiff to Defendant 2 to pay KRW 50 million from the remainder of the settlement amount to KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 50 million + the settlement amount to be paid KRW 50 million from the remainder of the settlement amount to the Plaintiff.

④ At the time of the instant settlement agreement, Defendant 2: (a) provided loan to the Plaintiff as collateral with the instant land, temple buildings, etc. and provided the Plaintiff with the settlement money; and (b) provided that Defendant 2 borrowed KRW 150 million from the Plaintiff in lieu of the agreement on the settlement of settlement money; (c) provided that Defendant 2 borrowed KRW 150 million from the Plaintiff, instead of the agreement on the settlement of settlement money; and (d) provided the Plaintiff with the loan certificate of this case and the loan certificate with the name of the borrower ○○○○○.

⑤ After that, Defendant 2 did not pay to the Plaintiff the settlement money pursuant to the instant settlement money payment agreement, despite having obtained a loan of KRW 400 million from the National Federation of Buddhist ○○○○○○○○○○○○ as collateral the instant land, temple buildings, and ( Address 1 omitted) land around December 2010.

(6) On March 23, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against Defendant 2 on suspicion of fraud that Defendant 2 did not intend to pay the settlement amount under the instant settlement payments agreement, and was returned to the instant land and the inspection building, etc. The Defendant 2 agreed to pay the settlement amount of KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff in the process of refunding the instant land and the inspection building and the right to operate the instant inspection from the Plaintiff during the investigation process. However, unlike the anticipated amount to receive the instant land and the inspection building as collateral, the Plaintiff stated to the effect that the Plaintiff was unable to pay the settlement amount of KRW 40 million due to the Plaintiff’s failure to receive the settlement amount of KRW 150 million,000,000,000 on the instant loan certificate after a separate settlement process between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, but did not make a statement to the effect that if the Plaintiff incurred expenses for the instant inspection, etc., the Plaintiff did not agree to pay the settlement amount.

㈏ 계약은 복수당사자의 의사표시 합치로 성립하는 법률행위로서 계약의 해석은 그 계약의 의미내용을 확정하는 작업이므로 당사자의 공통된 의사가 인정되지 아니하여 표시의 객관적 의미를 확정하여야 하는 경우에 계약당사자 사이에 어떠한 계약 내용을 처분문서인 서면으로 작성한 경우에 문언의 객관적인 의미가 명확한 때에는 특별한 사정이 없다면 문언대로의 의사표시의 존재와 내용을 인정하여야 하고, 그 문언의 객관적인 의미가 명확하게 드러나지 아니하여 당사자 사이에 계약의 해석을 둘러싸고 이견이 있어 처분문서에 나타난 당사자의 의사해석이 문제가 되는 경우에는 그 문언의 내용과 계약이 이루어지게 된 동기와 경위, 당사자가 계약으로 달성하려고 하는 목적과 진정한 의사, 거래의 관행 등을 종합적으로 고찰하여 사회정의와 형평의 이념에 맞도록 논리와 경험의 법칙, 그리고 사회 일반의 상식과 거래의 통념에 따라 계약 내용을 합리적으로 해석하여야 한다( 대법원 1995. 2. 10. 선고 94다16601 판결 , 대법원 2002. 5. 24. 선고 2000다72572 판결 , 대법원 2008. 3. 14. 선고 2007다11996 판결 , 대법원 2011. 5. 13. 선고 2010다58728 판결 등 참조).

In light of the aforementioned facts and the above facts, in addition to Defendant 2’s agreement to pay KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff after settling the expenses, etc. incurred by the Plaintiff in the course of operating the instant temple, where Defendant 2 agreed to pay KRW 100 million, Defendant 2, as alleged by Defendant 2, to either pay KRW 150 million on the loan certificate (Evidence 3-1 and No. 5-3 of the Plaintiff), if the Plaintiff incurred expenses within the scope of KRW 150 million on the loan certificate of this case through a subsequent separate settlement process between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to conclude that Defendant 2, in the course of returning the Plaintiff’s right to operate the instant land, inspection building, and inspection of this case, and the Plaintiff’s right to operate the instant temple, etc., the Plaintiff’s previous loan to Defendant 2, while operating the instant temple, KRW 270 million,000,000,000,000 paid the remainder of the Plaintiff’s loan to the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s remainder of the loan amount of KRW 100 million.

Whether the instant settlement payment agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2 constitutes an expression of intent by fraud or coercion

【Defendant 2’s argument】

Defendant 2 asserted that Defendant 2’s agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2 on the payment of KRW 150 million according to the loan certificate of this case to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff would not return the instant inspection without signing and sealing on the loan certificate while presenting the false details of use. Defendant 2 asserted that the agreement on the payment of the settlement money of this case between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2 constitutes an expression of intent by fraud or coercion.

[Judgment]

However, the evidence of this case (Evidence A Nos. 15, 21, 7, 16, and 18) is insufficient to recognize the facts of Defendant 2’s assertion that Defendant 2 had entered into an agreement to pay the instant settlement amount by deceiving the Plaintiff. There is no evidence to acknowledge the facts of Defendant 2’s assertion that Defendant 2 had entered into an agreement to pay the settlement amount of this case with the Plaintiff because Defendant 2 was subjected to heavy treatment against Defendant 2. The above assertion by Defendant 2 is without merit.

Then, whether the Plaintiff is a legitimate right holder of the claim for the settlement money under the instant settlement money payment agreement

【Plaintiff’s Claim】

The Plaintiff transferred his claim for the settlement of accounts under the instant settlement agreement to Nonparty 3, and again received it from Nonparty 3, thereby seeking payment of KRW 150 million to Defendant 2.

【Defendant 2’s argument】

Defendant 2 brought a lawsuit against Nonparty 3, who received the claim for the amount of the settlement under the instant settlement agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2, seeking the payment of the amount of the settlement money from the Plaintiff, and was rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff. Therefore, Defendant 2 asserts to the effect that there was no claim for the amount of the settlement money against the Defendant under the instant settlement agreement.

[Judgment]

According to the above premise facts, Defendant 2 prepared the loan certificate of this case to mean that the settlement amount pursuant to the settlement agreement of this case should be paid, and changed the loan certificate of this case to ○○○○○○,00 only on the same page, and the loan certificate (No. 5-3) equivalent to the loan certificate of this case was also prepared and presented to the Plaintiff, and thereafter, the Plaintiff transferred the claim pursuant to the above loan certificate to Nonparty 3, but again received the claim from Nonparty 3.

However, the loan certificate of this case is merely an establishment for the purpose of Buddhist school, not an incorporated foundation or association. Defendant 2 agreed to pay the settlement amount to the Plaintiff or borrowed funds from the Plaintiff, in addition to the payment agreement of the settlement amount of this case, rather than preparing a loan certificate under the loan certificate of this case, and instead written a loan certificate of the same contents as the loan certificate of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the debtor's debt based on the loan certificate of this case ○○○○○○○○○ is identical to the settlement amount pursuant to the settlement agreement of this case, and the debtor is also the defendant 2 who actually operated the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and accordingly, the claim that the plaintiff transferred to Nonparty 3 and received from Nonparty 3 is also a claim for the settlement amount against Defendant 2 under the settlement amount agreement of this case.

Therefore, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff transferred his claim for the settlement amount under the instant settlement amount agreement to Nonparty 3, and again received the claim from Nonparty 3, and notified Nonparty 3 of the assignment of the claim to Defendant 2 to Defendant 2, and the notification of the assignment of claim reached Defendant 2. As such, the Plaintiff may seek the payment of the settlement amount against Defendant 2 as the transferee of the claim for the settlement amount under the instant settlement amount agreement.

Even if Defendant 2’s aforementioned assertion is made in favor of the purport that res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment against Nonparty 3 extends to the Plaintiff, res judicata effect takes effect on the parties to the lawsuit, successors after the conclusion of pleadings, or persons possessing the object of the claim on their behalf (Article 218(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). In the case of a judgment in a lawsuit, res judicata takes effect on the judgment that the lawsuit is unlawful due to defects in the requirements for the lawsuit, and it does not take effect on the existence of legal relationship which is the subject matter of the lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 82Da15, Feb. 22, 1983, etc.). As seen earlier, Nonparty 3 requested the payment of the amount of money, based on the settlement amount payment agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2, against △△△ who was taken over from the Plaintiff, and against those who were not competent, the judgment was rendered against the Plaintiff on the ground that the lawsuit filed by Nonparty 3 did not have any substantial effect on the existence of legal relationship between the parties.

x) Whether it is against the good faith principle or the principle of equity to seek the payment of the settlement amount under the instant settlement agreement

【Defendant 2’s argument】

Defendant 2 transferred the right to operate the instant temple to the Plaintiff on condition that the inspection does not increase the debts owed to the Plaintiff. While the Plaintiff acquired the right to operate the instant temple, Defendant 2 did not receive any payment from the Plaintiff at the time of returning the right to operate the instant temple again, and Defendant 2 succeeded not only to the Plaintiff’s repayment of the right to operate the instant temple, but also to the Plaintiff’s obligation equivalent to KRW 50 million for personal use out of the loan that the Plaintiff actually borrowed the instant land, etc. as security at the time of operating the instant temple. Thus, Defendant 2 or the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of KRW 150 million exceeding KRW 44,920,780,000 which the Plaintiff actually spent for operating the instant temple is contrary to the good faith or the principle of equity.

[Judgment]

However, the evidence of this case (Evidence Nos. 9, 10, 15, 3, 7, 9, 16, and 18 of this case) alone is insufficient to recognize Defendant 2’s assertion that the payment agreement of the instant settlement amount was concluded under the circumstances as alleged by Defendant 2, and the Plaintiff’s seeking payment of the settlement amount pursuant to the instant settlement amount agreement against Defendant 2 is contrary to the good faith or the principle of equity.

On the other hand, as seen earlier, Defendant 2: (a) donated the instant land and the instant temple buildings to the Plaintiff and transferred the right to operate the instant temple on condition that the Plaintiff take over obligations related to the instant temple; (b) again, in the course of returning the instant land and the instant temple operation right again from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s existing loan to Defendant 2; (c) KRW 270 million, which the Plaintiff demanded settlement under the pretext of operating expenses and interest on loans incurred during the period of operating the instant temple; and (d) KRW 270,000,000,000,000, which was determined to have been paid directly by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff or by offsetting the Plaintiff’s obligation for the land purchased by the Plaintiff; and (b) as long as the Plaintiff voluntarily agreed to pay KRW 1250,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 2 for the implementation of the instant agreement or the principle of equity in payment.

B. Whether the lawsuit against Defendant 1 is lawful (ex officio determination)

【Plaintiff’s Claim】

The Plaintiff is an unincorporated organization that has no real entity and is not an independent holder of rights. Each of the registrations of this case is an invalid cause that does not fit with the substantive relationship. Defendant 2, the real owner of the land of this case and the temple building, is entitled to seek the implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration of each of the registrations of this case against Defendant 1, the real owner of the land of this case and the temple building registered as the representative of the Korea-U.S. Dosan. Thus, in order to preserve the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation registration of each of the registrations of this case against Defendant 2, the Plaintiff sought implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration of each of the registrations of this case against Defendant 1 based on the obligee’s right of subrogation.

[Judgment]

Where a false registration that interferes with the ownership of a person who is true on the registry exists, and the registered titleholder has no person or entity, the owner may seek cancellation of the registration in the name of an unincorporated person or organization without an entity representing the person who actually performed the registration under the name of an unincorporated person or organization without an entity as a result of the ownership (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da684, 90Da3307, May 8, 1990). In addition, a lawsuit seeking cancellation of registration against a person who is not a person liable for registration, namely, a person who loses his right or is not a person who is not a party to the registration (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da3925, Feb. 25, 1994) is unlawful as it is against a person without a standing to be a party (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da684, Feb. 25, 1994).

However, as seen earlier, Defendant 2 donated the instant land and the temple building to the Plaintiff around June 2009, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of Buddhist ○○○○○○ for the purpose of tax reduction and exemption. Thus, Defendant 2, the owner of the instant land and the temple building, can seek cancellation of each of the instant registration under the name of an organization with no substance indicated in the name of the Plaintiff, as an organization with no substance, as an exemption from interference with the ownership, even if it is separate, Defendant 2 may seek cancellation of each of the instant registration under the name of an organization with no substance indicated in the name of the Plaintiff. However, it is difficult to view that Defendant 2, after the Plaintiff’s return of the instant land and the temple building from the Plaintiff, changed the additional registration to ○○○○○○○, who had no substance indicated on the ground of change of the name of the registered titleholder 1, to the effect that the change was made to the name of the registered titleholder 5, which appears to have been indicated on the ground of such change.

Therefore, it is unlawful for the Plaintiff to seek implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration of each of the registrations of this case against Defendant 1 on behalf of Defendant 2 as a lawsuit against a person who is not obligated to register cancellation.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant 1 is unlawful, and since the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff against the plaintiff, the defendant 2 is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 22, 2014 to the day following the delivery date of the notice of assignment of claims to the defendant 2 to the day of full payment (the plaintiff is entitled to the payment of damages for delay after the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, but unless the due date is specified, the obligor is liable for delay from the day following the receipt of the claim for performance and until the due date of the assignment of nominative claim cannot be asserted against the obligor until the due date of the claim assignment. Thus, where the assignee of the claim without fixed due date reaches the due date for performance against the obligor, the obligor shall be liable for delay of payment from the date following the delivery date of the claim of this case to the plaintiff 200 million won until the due date of the assignment of claims of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant 1 shall be dismissed, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 is without merit. Since the part against the defendant 1 among the judgment of the court of first instance that differs from this conclusion is unfair, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant 1 is revoked, and the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant 2 is dismissed, and the part against the defendant 2 among the judgment of first instance that concluded this conclusion is just, and it is dismissed

[Attachment]

Judges exhaustr fever (Presiding Judge)