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

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The reasoning of this Court’s explanation by this Court is as follows: (a) part of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance is modified as stated in paragraph (2) below; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the determination of the plaintiffs’ assertion added in paragraph (3) below; and (c) therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. Parts to be dried;

A. Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance provides that "P" shall be applied to "E".

B. On No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part “B 1, B 7 (the plaintiff does not go to 1)” was added as follows.

Defendant D’s horse that it is necessary to prepare a contract with E and 7 companies. Defendant D’s seal, which is the representative of E, was the defense that Defendant D arbitrarily signed the business investment performance document and the contract for processing, and forged each of the above documents. However, Defendant D’s testimony of witness Q of the first instance trial and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs to the trial court is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence.

【】

C. On the 8th judgment of the court of first instance, “1,100” was added to “12,000” written in the delivery column supplied to N in No. 5 No. 5 of the Damage Calculation Table.

No. 11 of the first instance judgment, the part regarding “the rescission of the instant contract” in Chapter 8 of the first instance judgment shall be referred to as “the cancellation of the instant contract.”

3. The decision on additional set-off (the decision on the preliminary set-off defense against a counterclaim claim)

A. Under the instant investment agreement, the Plaintiffs are premised on the fact that the Defendant C, who received the Defendant D’s claim against the Defendant B, one of the members of the Plaintiff Company, cannot offset the original claim that the Defendant C owes to the partnership by using the said claim as the automatic claim. Therefore, notwithstanding the Defendant C’s counterclaim, the Plaintiffs’ claim for the original claim was not extinguished, and thus, the Plaintiffs did not extinguish the Plaintiffs’ claim for the original claim despite the Defendant C’s counterclaim.