1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasons why the court should explain by this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the 3th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance (2007 around January 9, 2008); (b) the 5th sentence (13), and the 18th sentence (17) are as “P”; and (c) the 17th sentence (17) are as “Defendant Sejong”; and (d) the 6th sentence through 18 are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following changes: (a) the 3th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance (207 around January 9, 2008); and

The agreement between the debtor and the underwriter is a combination of a contract between the takeover of performance and the third party, and it is a matter of interpretation of a juristic act to determine whether the debtor and the underwriter’s agreement with respect to the assumption of obligation is the acceptance of performance or the assumption of obligation jointly. The criteria for determining whether the debtor and the underwriter, who are the parties to the contract, have the intent to have the obligee acquire the claim directly against the assumption of obligation. However, the interpretation of the contract seems to have had the intent to have the plaintiff et al. to have the plaintiff et al. acquire the claim. However, since the Defendants did not express their intent to make profits by exercising their rights directly against the plaintiff et al., it cannot be effective as the assumption of obligation, and it is only effective as the acceptance of performance.

(1) As alleged in the Plaintiff, the Defendants are able to be exempted from their liability by paying expenses incurred in creating forest replacement resources, etc. that the Defendants are liable to pay. Even if the Defendants were aware of such fact and the Defendants did not take particular measures regarding the provisional attachment of the Defendants’ property, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants explicitly expressed their intent of return. The relationship between the Plaintiff, the Defendants, and the three-dimensional relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and the three-dimensional relationship, thereby establishing a return relationship of unjust enrichment.