1. Claim against Plaintiff N among the judgment of the first instance, including Plaintiff N’s claim expanded by this court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of “3. additional determination” as to the claim extended by the plaintiff N in this court, and thus, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding "the validity of a claim attachment and assignment order" is as follows. 1) In light of the above legal principles as to the validity of a claim attachment and assignment order, Defendant P's claim attachment and assignment order is null and void, and its validity does not extend to the claim of this case. ① The above claim attachment and assignment order under the above claim attachment and assignment order is stated as "the claim for refund of the land secured for development outlay as of April 24, 1992, which is the substitute's claim against the union" and its meaning is "the claim for refund of the land secured for development outlay as of April 24, 1992, which is the substitute's claim against the union, such as service charges, partnership operation expenses, loan, etc., which is delivered to the union, but since the above claim such as service charges, etc. had already been delivered to the union and the assignment order had already become null and void as of April 27, 2006 as of April 13, 2006.