1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as follows: “The purport of the entire pleading” under Article 20 of the 2nd sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance is insufficient to acknowledge that the confession was contrary to the truth and due to mistake, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the confession was made due to the evidence submitted by the Defendants, although the Defendant, which led to the confession of possession, was revoked at the date of the first pleading of the court of first instance; therefore, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the confession was made contrary to the truth and due to mistake; therefore, the “certificate 6” under Article 12 of the 3nd sentence is modified into “certificate 13”; and the judgment is added as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for

2. The defendants added to the part of the defendants, who are the plaintiff's wife, directly prepare the settlement of accounts and accounting books of the E church, and the plaintiff also stated that the plaintiff donated KRW 30 million to the building of this case. Thus, the defendants asserted that the defendant has the title to occupy the building of this case, but it cannot be deemed that the defendant had any title to occupy the building of this case because F did the above act, and therefore, the defendants' assertion on this part is rejected.

The defendants also have a defense against the good faith principle that the plaintiff transferred or provided the building of this case for use by E.I.D.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 7, 8, and 10 (including the number of branch numbers) and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, most of the instant buildings were constructed at the Plaintiff’s expense. The plaintiff completed the instant building and intended to use the said building together with the members of Ecom Association, including the defendants, but was prior to the completion of the building, which led to the difference between the defendants and the defendants, and thus, the plaintiff made a towing line to the Ecom Association.