All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendants added the judgment as stipulated in the following Paragraph 2 to the allegations added in the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional supplementary judgment

A. The Defendants asserted that the actual owner of the forest of this case was the Defendant B, and that E donated part of E’s testimony to the Plaintiff under the direction of Defendant B, but, according to the Plaintiff’s suspicion, it was difficult to accept the Defendants’ testimony as favorable to the Defendants. However, in light of the Plaintiff’s suspicion, the Defendants asserted that “E was part of E’s testimony as favorable to the Defendants, and, based on the Plaintiff’s suspicion, it was difficult to find that H was a substitute for the graveyard, and that H decided to do so.” However, as alleged by the Defendants, the actual owner of the forest of this case was Defendant B, and there was no objective evidence or circumstance to deem that there was Defendant B’s instruction on donation of the forest of this case to the Plaintiff. However, in the first instance trial, the Defendants did not assert that the testimony of the first instance court was partially favorable to the Defendants, but it was difficult to find that the testimony of the Defendants was part of the E’s testimony as above, and that the testimony of the E-T1921 and the E-297 evidence of this case became final and conclusive.

B. The Defendants are the Plaintiff’s representative director against E and Defendant B.