1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this case is that the Defendants added the following determination as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance, and the ground for the court of first instance’s determination as to Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is as follows, since Article 3(b) of the reasoning for the court of first instance is identical to Article 1, 2, and 3 of the reasoning for the court of first instance, except for the modification as set forth in the following

2. The defendants asserts that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case concerns the partnership's obligations, and since the partnership's property belongs to partnership's properties, it constitutes an essential co-litigation.

(2) The Plaintiff’s lawsuit does not include D among the members of the instant association, and thus is unlawful. However, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendants does not constitute an essential co-litigation that ought to be filed against all the members of the instant association, in cases where the creditors of the association do not ask for joint liability with respect to the association’s property, but exercise the pertinent claim based on their personal responsibility (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da30705, Nov. 22, 1991). The Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendants is not a joint liability with respect to the association property, but rather a joint liability with respect to the property of the association. Thus, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendants is an essential co-litigation that ought to be filed against all the members of the instant association.

The above assertion by the Defendants on different premise cannot be accepted.

3. The changed part

B. Each of the instant contracts was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff upon the rescission of each of the instant contracts, and the Defendants asserted to the effect that each of the instant contracts did not exceed the meaning of verifying the Plaintiff’s investment, rather than the sale or sales contract. However, each of the instant contracts is written as evidence No. 2-1 and No. 2, the authenticity of which is recognized.