1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons why this Court has used this part of the underlying facts are as follows: (a) the “Plaintiff and the 5th written judgment of the first instance court” shall be deemed to be “Defendant”; and (b) each “Plaintiff” of the 12th, 12th, and 13th, 14th to “Defendant” shall be deemed to be “Defendant”; and (c) it shall be deemed to be identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of

2. The reasoning for use of this part of the judgment as to the primary claim is as follows, given that the judgment on the primary claim is as stated in the part "2. Judgment on the primary claim" in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal of the corresponding part, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The defendant in Part 12 of the 15th decision of the court of first instance is regarded as "Ampha Empha".

(b) Parts 11 to 17 of the first instance judgment are as follows.

In addition to the above facts, the consortium in this case is basically obligated to proceed with the business in accordance with the business plan in this case, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant's duty to cooperate is a duty to adjust the business plan with a specific content. The content that the consortium in this case requested to change is to improve its business feasibility, most of which is to request the defendant to yield to the defendant mainly. Since the sales contract in this case was concluded by a public offering and evaluation of the contents of the business plan was assessed as an important factor in the selection of the business operator, changing the essential contents to the contents favorable to the business operator after the conclusion of the sales contract would give preference in relation to the persons excluded from the public offering, thereby impairing the fairness and legitimacy of the public offering. In full view of the above facts, the defendant appears to have made considerable cooperation for the success of the business in this case in light of the principle of good faith.