1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the Appointed Party N,O, and P are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation in this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the following parts. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance

(A) In light of the allegations and evidence added in the trial, the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court is not different, except for the following parts added and added. All of the plaintiffs in the first instance judgment are as follows; “Plaintiffs, etc.”; “Plaintiffs, etc. (Appointeds)” in the second instance judgment; “Plaintiffs, etc. (Appointeds) and Plaintiff (Appointeds)” in the second instance judgment; “Plaintiffs, etc.” in the third instance 18; “Plaintiffs,” in the third instance, “Plaintiffs,” and “Plaintiffs, etc. (Appointeds)” in the 10th instance judgment.

Forms 6 through 9 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be amended as follows.

3. Determination as to the claim for collection against the defendant bank

A. The plaintiff et al. asserts that since non-Subrogation received the second claim attachment and collection order with respect to the claim of this case transferred from H, the defendant bank should pay the amount equivalent to the amount stated in the claim sought by the plaintiff et al. according to the second claim attachment and collection order.

In regard to this, the defendant bank did not allow the plaintiff's claim for the collection amount of this case against the res judicata effect of the previous final and conclusive judgment. Furthermore, the defendant bank asserted that the claim of this case was repaid or the claim of this case had already been extinguished due to

B. (1) The defendant bank asserts that since the judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim for the collection amount becomes final and conclusive in a prior final and conclusive judgment, the claim for the collection amount in this case is not allowed against the res judicata effect.

On the other hand, since the final judgment which became final and conclusive has res judicata effect binding upon the parties and the court, the party against which the plaintiff lost is the other party in the previous lawsuit.