1. Each of the plaintiffs' appeals is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. The grounds asserted by the Plaintiffs in the trial of the first instance are not different from the allegations in the first instance court, and the judgment of the first instance court rejecting the Plaintiffs’ claims even if the Plaintiffs’ claims were to re-examine the respective descriptions or images of Gap’s evidence, Gap’s evidence, and evidence Nos. 60 through 64 (including each number), and Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number), which were additionally submitted in the trial of the first instance.

The reasoning for this case is as follows. Article 20 subparag. 2 subparag. 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows; Article 20 subparag. 2 of the 4th 5th e.g., “X” of the 6th e., “U”; Article 11 subparag. 20 of the 13th e., “data”; Article 13 subparag. 5 of the 14th e, “5th e.,”; Article 14th 8th e., “mid wholesale”; Article 15th 8th e., “5th 6th e.,” Article 16th 8th e., “6th e.,” Article 20 of the 20th e.g., “No. 2016 e.,” Article 20th 5th 5th e., “No. 2016 e., [3] 4th e., [4th e., 201st e.,”

Since the joint plaintiffs A, C, and F in the first instance court's trial were separated and finalized, only the part related to the plaintiffs in the trial shall be quoted.

Plaintiff

The rest of the plaintiffs except D are participants in auxiliary auction, who are the nominal holders of the right to permit, etc.