1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant's conjunctive claim exceeds the following amount ordering payment.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of a part as described in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is decided to accept it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4

(Separation) In the part of the first instance court’s joint Plaintiffs B, D, E, F, and the first instance court’s joint Plaintiffs C and Co-Defendant H, I, and J, for which the order to dismiss the petition of appeal was not yet confirmed, among the grounds of the first instance judgment, the part concerning the dismissal or addition of “Plaintiff B” as “B”, “Plaintiff C” as “C”, “Plaintiff D” as “D”, “Plaintiff E” as “E”, “Plaintiff F” as “F”, “Defendant H” as “H”, “Defendant I” as “H”, and “Defendant J” as “J”, respectively.

The fourth and fifth lines of the judgment of the court of first instance are "K" as "D."

Paragraph (3) of the first instance judgment

(c) 2) 3) are as follows:

【2) As seen earlier, as the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was determined: (a) the instant fraternity was separately paid from the members of the joint fraternity recruited by the Plaintiff and the Defendant as joint owners; and (b) as the Plaintiff and the Defendant were operated in such a way that they are responsible for the members of the fraternity respectively recruited by the Defendant, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff and the Defendant are liable for the settlement of the accounts to the members of the fraternity they recruited. Accordingly, even in the case where the instant fraternity was terminated, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff and the Defendant are liable for the settlement of accounts between the members of the other states. Accordingly, there is no credit and debt relationship between the members of the fraternity belonging to the other states, and the joint fraternity is liable for the settlement of accounts only for the members of the fraternity they recruited, and it is not liable for the settlement of accounts for the members that they did not recruit. As a result, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the joint owners, as joint owners, are not responsible for the settlement of accounts for the members they recruited.