1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. Defendant A’s assertion to add part of the reasoning of the judgment of first instance to this case is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The part written after the conclusion of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: “Defendant A is an employee of Defendant B and Defendant C,” and “Defendant B is an employee of Defendant A and Defendant C.”

No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the 11th of the 5th of the 11st of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the judgment,

The first instance judgment’s 6th page 4 states that “the Plaintiff agreed to pay the sum of KRW 18,492,600” to the sum of KRW 18,492,600 and agreed to terminate the instant lease agreement and deliver the land of the instant vinyl to the Plaintiff where the Plaintiff did not pay it within the said period.”

The 6th written judgment of the court of first instance is that the 6th written judgment of the court of first instance is “a fee and the money stated in paragraph (h) above.”

In the first instance judgment, the part 8, 1, and 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the delayed payment of the fee, etc. shall be deemed to be the "payment of the fee, etc.".

Part 9 of the judgment of the first instance shall be deleted from 19th "Proliferation".

The judgment of the court of first instance on the 13th page 16th page “Defendant B” in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be “Defendant B” to the Plaintiff according to the instant payment agreement.

2. Additional determination

A. Defendant A’s assertion was merely lent the name necessary for the establishment and operation of Defendant C as Defendant B’s son, and the acquisition of the instant vinyl house.

Accordingly, all of the instant lease agreements were actually concluded by Defendant B, and at the time, the Plaintiff was well aware of the fact that Defendant B is the actual representative of Defendant C or the actual owner of the instant vinyl house.

Therefore, this case against the plaintiff.