1. All appeals filed by Plaintiffs, Defendant D, and E are dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs and defendant C and F Co., Ltd. are generated.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for partial revision as follows.

The name of "Gu" of 17 pages 4 of the judgment of the first instance shall be modified into "Gu hole".

In full view of the facts of the judgment of the first instance and the purport of the entire pleadings, the appellate court of the final judgment as to Defendant E determined as follows: “The method of transport by the first instance court to Defendant E is not the original method of use, which is to have the cargo transported and unloaded through the mast, after putting the Make in the bottom of the cargo subject to transport.” (In full view of the facts of the above recognition and the purport of the entire arguments, the appellate court of the final judgment as to Defendant E also held as follows.).

The following shall be added to the last seven pages of the first instance judgment:

[2] Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted that, at the time of entering into the instant insurance contract, Defendant F Co., Ltd. failed to perform its duty to explain clearly as to Article 2 (Non-compensation Damages) of the Special Terms and Conditions of Construction Machinery at the time of entering into the instant insurance contract, the content of the said terms and conditions cannot be deemed as the content of the insurance contract. However, in full view of the purport of the oral argument as a whole, the above Defendant’s insurance solicitor explained to Defendant E the major contents of the instant insurance contract (such as matters not guaranteeing the payment of insurance money, in particular, matters not guaranteeing the payment of insurance money) at the time of entering into the instant insurance contract, and it is reasonable to deem that Defendant E signed the policyholder’s self-written confirmation

2. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant D and E are justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. The claims against the defendant C and F Co., Ltd are dismissed as they are without merit.