1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the Defendants exceeding the next payment order is revoked.

1. The reasoning for the judgment on this part of the facts admitted is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420

(However, “Defendant C” is “C”, and “Defendant D” is written in “D”, and the occurrence of liability for damages 2.

A. (i) Defendant E, F, G, H, I, C, and D alleged by the Plaintiffs were not held on October 29, 2009 by the board of directors of the Defendant clan and the general meeting of the clans on November 5, 2009, and prepared a false resolution of the board of directors and the general meeting of the clans, and submitted it to the lender through C, D, as if the board of directors and the general meeting of the clan were held lawfully and effectively, and the lender who believed to be true had completed the establishment registration of the establishment of the instant real estate and lent funds to theO on the instant real estate without the resolution of the legitimate general meeting of the Defendant clan, but the lender was cancelled on the ground that the establishment registration of the establishment of the instant root was made without the resolution of the general meeting of the Defendant clans, and eventually the lender incurred damages that are equivalent to the maximum amount of claims for the establishment registration of the establishment of the instant clans, and thus the said Defendants jointly are liable for compensation for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs

In addition, Defendant clan, as its representative, and Defendant E, F, G, H, and I, committed such tort as above, and thus, they are liable for compensating for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Civil Act. Even if such liability is not recognized, Defendant clan is liable for compensating for the damages of the Plaintiffs as users of C, Defendant E, F, G, H, and I pursuant to Article 756 of the Civil Act.

⑵ 피고들의 주장 ㈎ 피고 종중의 이사들은 D에게 기망당하여 이 사건 부동산의 근저당권설정등기가 O이 지급한 계약금의 반환을 담보하기 위해 설정되는 것으로 알고 근저당권자와 채권최고액이 공란으로 되어 있던 2009. 10. 29.자 이사회결의서 및 2009. 11. 5.자...