1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The appeal cost is borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The grounds for appeal by the Defendants cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance was presented to this court, the fact-finding and judgment in the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, the reasoning of this court’s judgment is partly modified as follows, and the Defendants’ assertion added or emphasized by this court is identical to the reasoning of the first instance judgment except for adding up “2. Additional Determination” as to the assertion added or emphasized by this court. Thus, this Court’s judgment is acceptable in accordance with the main text of Article 4

(However, the part concerning the co-defendants of the first instance court who was separated and determined and the part regarding the "2. Judgment on the Claim for Complaint" rather than the scope of the judgment in this Court is excluded).

Defendant B, C, and F’s “Defendant B, and F” in the 16th 2nd 16th judgment of the first instance court is “Defendants,” and both “the Defendants” and “the Defendants,” respectively.

(b) by striking 9 each week.

C. On November 25, 2018, “B” around November 25, 2018, at the bottom of the 19th judgment of the first instance.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendants’ assertion 1) The original agreement (as of November 14, 2008), the amendment agreement (as of November 27, 2008), and the additional amendment agreement (as of January 20, 2009) are signed and sealed by J’s executive director voluntarily on each agreement without the resolution of the board of directors. Defendant B affixed the additional amendment agreement in the absence of recognition of the Plaintiff’s tort upon the Plaintiff’s unconditional request. In addition, the Plaintiff issued the exemption agreement in advance to R and N on January 19, 2009, before the additional amendment agreement was made without the consent of the fund beneficiaries. 2) The Plaintiff did not register the modification of the security right (mortgage) after receiving the trust status from H organization, and did not assist the Plaintiff to the land block (referring to the land block).