1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasons for this Court concerning this case are as follows, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the court of first instance to the judgment of the court of first instance under Paragraph 2. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

B. The testimony of the court witness F to the effect that he did not play a leading role in relation to the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the establishment of each of the instant sub-paragraphs 9 and 4 of the first 9 shall be deemed to be a registration of the invalidity of the cause, and that he did not have any other evidence to reverse the above recognition, considering all the circumstances recognized earlier.

2. Determination on addition

A. Defendant A, the mother, who was a minor, concluded a mortgage agreement with the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant A regarding the establishment of each of the instant mortgages on behalf of the Defendant A, is a breach of trust agreement that the J entered into for the benefit of himself, D, F, etc., and Hju station, the Plaintiff’s agent, was aware of his intent in breach of trust. As such, even if the establishment of each of the instant mortgages was cancelled, Defendant A asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit, since the cancellation registration is a registration consistent with the substantive relationship.

B. In an objective view of the act of acting for a person with parental authority, who is a legal representative, causes only economic loss to a minor, while the act of acting for a person with parental authority or a third party is an act of causing economic loss to the minor, and when the other party to the act knew or could have known such fact, it is reasonable to interpret that the act does not extend to the person who has performed the act by analogy applying the proviso of Article 107(1) of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da64669, Dec. 22, 201). However, according to