1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.

1. The reasons why this Court is stated in this part of the underlying facts are the same as that of “1. Basic Facts” in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, if it excludes the following parts, and thus, they are included in summary in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The margin between the order and the purport of the claim and the reasons for the calculation of the number of conduct No. 15 on the third side was not considered one.

(hereinafter the same shall apply)

All of Defendant D’s “D”, 3 pages 17 and below “Defendant E” are all “E”, 3 pages 19 and below “Defendant G” are all “G”, 4 pages 4 and below, 3 and 5 “Defendant C” are all “Defendant”, and 5 pages “Defendant F” are all “F”.

The 6th page 6 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs shall be filled with "H" as "Defendant".

In the case of the head of the 7th step, the "relevant final and conclusive judgment" (hereinafter referred to as "related final and conclusive judgment") shall be followed by "(hereinafter referred to as "related final and conclusive judgment", and when the first and second instances of the above case are referred to at once, the case shall be referred to as "related civil cases" or "related civil litigation" (hereinafter referred to as "related civil litigation").

Shesing 7 to 18 pages 7, 17-18 (the part of the grounds for recognition of the basic facts), as follows.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Facts which are obvious to this Court, Gap evidence 1 to 11, 13, 15, 16 (if any, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. On October 7, 2008, the Defendant, D, and G, which caused the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant, knew that the secured debt of the instant right to collateral of the instant case was not confirmed due to the arrival of the period for settlement of accounts. However, the Defendant, D, and G knew that the secured debt of the instant right to collateral of the instant case was a finalized claim, and deceiving the Plaintiff B by deeming the secured debt of the instant right to collateral of the instant case as a conclusive claim. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs believed that the instant right to collateral