1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. Facts recognized;

A. The status of the parties (1) and the co-Plaintiff A of the first instance trial (the status of the co-Plaintiff of the first instance trial from the next to the next) are shareholders of F Co., Ltd., a corporation established for the purpose of operating the golf course, etc. (F).

From around 2005, F has promoted a project to create a golf course, which is an urban planning facility, (the next project) in the Iri House, including the J, K, and L Forest in the Hari-Saeong-Saeaeong-Saeari, the State-owned land.

(2) Defendant AH was a corporation established for the purpose of tourist leisure business, etc., and its trade name was changed to “C” on February 22, 2019.

(B) The Defendant Company applied for rehabilitation on April 24, 2015 by Seoul Central District Court 2015 Gohap10099.

On May 15, 2015, the above court accepted the application of the defendant company and decided to commence rehabilitation procedures and appointed D as the administrator of the defendant company, but decided to terminate rehabilitation procedures on November 21, 2018.

The Plaintiff initially filed the instant lawsuit against the administrator D and Defendant E of the Defendant Company.

After the completion of rehabilitation procedures while the lawsuit in the first instance court was pending, the defendant company taken over D's litigation procedures on December 6, 2018.

(3) Defendant E is a vice president of the AI, who is the former president of G Group, the former president of the G Group, which is an affiliate company of Defendant E, etc. as an affiliate company.

B. The Defendant Company entered into a contract with the Plaintiff, A, and F, and the Defendants (1) established a business plan to create a resort complex by acquiring a golf course adjacent to the instant project site, expanding facilities, constructing a skiing ground and contact with the Defendant. Since 1997, there was a dispute over the instant project, including securing a project site, between F and F, since around 2009.

(2) On March 24, 2009, F and M & H.