1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional Judgment" as to the allegations added by the Defendants, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

(1) The court below's findings and determination of the first instance court is just in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the Defendants in the first instance court, and there were no errors as alleged in the grounds for appeal by the Defendants. 2. Additional determination

A. Defendant C asserts that the evidence No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “instant written oath”) was prepared and awarded to a person who was not the Plaintiff, and the content was requested to be sent to the person who was not the Plaintiff by e-mail, but the person who was unable to receive the statement was not sent to the Defendant, and the content was likely to have been altered, and thus, it is invalid.

A written pledge signed by the Defendant C constitutes a disposal document (where the legal act to be proved was conducted by a document, the document must be disposed of), and as long as the disposal document is deemed to be authentic, the court must recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof to the extent that the content of the statement can be denied.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23482 Decided June 28, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2006Da61574 Decided January 12, 2007, etc.). In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, inasmuch as the Defendant C was the person who signed the instant pledge, the authenticity of the said pledge is presumed to have been established, and the fact that the content of the said pledge has been altered is presumed to have been altered, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the person who received the above written oath is not the plaintiff, or defendant C is an e-mail.