1. The plaintiffs' appeal and the claims added by plaintiffs A, B, C, and D in this court are all dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and each statement of evidence Nos. 27 through 29 (including additional numbers) submitted by the court of first instance, and each result of this court's order to submit financial transaction information to AW organizations is justifiable in light of the result of each order to submit financial transaction information submitted by the court of first instance.

Therefore, this court's reasoning is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment stated in Paragraph 2 below with respect to claims added by this court, and therefore, this court's reasoning is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[However, among the claims in this case, the part of the claim for cancellation of the registration of creation of a collateral against Defendant E and F in favor of Plaintiff E in the first instance trial, and Plaintiff F lost, which does not fall under the scope of the trial of this court due to the withdrawal of appeal from Plaintiff F, and the separation and confirmation of Defendant I was made due to the lack of objection, and thus, it does not fall under the scope of the trial of this court (excluding the part of the claim for cancellation of the registration of creation of a collateral against Defendants E and F in the first instance trial, which Plaintiff C additionally paid to the Defendants, as Plaintiff C withdraws from this court (excluding the part of the claim for the settlement of the balance paid to the Defendants, from the 7th to 21th, and from the 3th to the 12th 15th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth 7

A. According to the results of the survey and appraisal by the appraiser AX on the part of the claim against the Defendant J (excluding Plaintiff D) by the Plaintiff J, B, C, and D, the living room was extended to 4.3 square meters. In the case of the Defendant J, it was found that the living room was 2.28 square meters or less than the original contract. In the case of the expansion of the living room, the living room was 4 million square meters per square meter, and the living room was 5,212,100 square meters or more (4 million won x 4.3 square meters per square meter). The cost of expanding the living room was 5,212,100 won (4 million won x 4.3 square meters per square meter). The amount of the reduced portion is 241,818 won (350,000 won x 2.28 square meters or 3.3 square meters per square meter per square meter.