All appeals filed by both the Plaintiff and Defendant F are dismissed.

Of the appeal cost, the part between the plaintiff, defendant B, C, and D shall be considered.

1. The grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff and Defendant F, citing the judgment of the court of first instance, are not significantly different from each other in the court of first instance, except for the addition of the Plaintiff’s argument as follows, and the fact-finding and determination by the court of first instance are justified even if each evidence submitted to this court is presented to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows: each "Defendant G corporation, Co-Defendant G, Ltd., Ltd.," described in the part on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be deemed to be "J Co-Defendant corporation, etc.," and each "witness" described in the 5th, 9, 11, 14, 7, and 15th 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be "the witness of the court of first instance", and the 5th, 17, 18, 6th 1, 3 through 4, and 6 through 12 "Defendant B, C, D, F, W, and X" shall be deemed to be "Defendant B, C, D, F, and X", and the "Defendant Z" described in the 12th 2nd 12th 17th e.g., "the defendants" as "the defendants," and "the plaintiff 14th e.g., 14th Ga" of the judgment.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants entrusted all business related to the instant business to the Co-Defendant G Co-Defendant of the first instance trial, and Y believed that Y had the authority to conclude the instant parcelling-out contract in the name of the Defendants, and that there is reasonable ground for reliance on such belief. As such, the instant parcelling-out agency contract is valid in accordance with Article 126 of the Civil Act, and the Defendants are liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of money stated

B. In light of the above circumstances, the Plaintiff submitted the judgment.