1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is ordered.

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 raised in the court of first instance. If the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows the evidence submitted in the court of first instance, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: ① the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “each entry” among the four pages [based on recognition] of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be cited as “each entry or video”; ② With respect to the allegations added by Defendant H and G in this court, the following parts of the judgment of the court of first instance are added, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Additional determination

A. With respect to the allegation that the contract invalidation between Defendant H’s Plaintiffs and Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is invalid, the grounds for this part are as follows: (a) Defendant F’s “Evidence submitted by the Defendant F” in the first instance judgment is dismissed as “Evidence submitted by the Defendant F”; and (b) Defendant F’s allegation in the first instance judgment 6, 10, and 7, 10, and 7, 10, 100, 100, 2-2, of the first instance judgment, except that Defendant H’s above assertion is without merit.”

B.2) Since it is identical to the entry in paragraph (a), it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. As to the assertion of abuse of rights by Defendant G, Defendant G asserts that the claim of this case by the Plaintiffs is not beneficial to both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, and that the case becomes final and conclusive, the mutual damages between the Plaintiff and the Defendants shall be constantly determined and thus, it shall be dismissed as an abuse of rights.

In light of the records, insofar as it is acknowledged that the plaintiffs had a plan to build a building on the ground of eight neighboring lots including the real estate in this case, the plaintiffs' claim in this case cannot be viewed as an abuse of rights solely on the circumstances alleged by the defendant G, and there is no other evidence to view it otherwise.

Defendant G’s above assertion is with merit.