1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall consist of a principal lawsuit and a counterclaim.

1. The grounds for appeal by the Defendants cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and each evidence submitted in the court of first instance is deemed legitimate even if each evidence submitted in the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Therefore, this court's reasoning is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for partial revision or addition as follows. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the fourth and third cases of the judgment of the court of first instance, the term "this court" shall be read as "the court of first instance".

In the first instance judgment, the first instance judgment Nos. 21 to 5 shall be dismissed as follows.

The Defendants, “B.” With respect to this, given that the Plaintiff granted the power of representation to G on all business affairs, including the exclusive management of the instant building, the respective lease agreements on each of the instant buildings concluded between the Defendants and G, the Plaintiff’s agent, are valid as the authorized representative, or even if not, the Plaintiff bears the responsibility for the expressive representation pursuant to Articles 125 and 126 of the Civil Act. Defendant B and Defendant C have the legitimate right to possess each of the instant subparagraph. The expressive representation by the display of the power of representation pursuant to Article 125 of the Civil Act is established in cases where a certain person, regardless of the nature or validity of the basic legal relations between the principal and the person who performed the act on behalf of the principal, has granted the said person the power of representation to a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da23425, Aug. 23, 2007).