1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is ordered.

1. As to the instant case, the reasoning of the first instance court’s explanation is as follows: “The date of the Plaintiff’s loss of ownership on each of the instant real estate” in the first instance judgment No. 3; “The date of the loss of ownership on each of the instant real estate” in the first instance judgment No. 1; “The date of the loss of ownership on 2/7 shares among the instant real estate” in the first instance judgment No. 3; “The date of the loss of ownership on each of the instant real estate” in the first instance judgment No. 41 through No. 3; “The date of the loss of ownership on 2/3 shares of each of the instant real estate” in the first instance judgment No. 41 through No. 43; “The date of the loss of ownership on 2/3 shares of each of the instant real estate” in the second instance judgment, and it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants received rent for each of the instant real estate during the period of 1 to 40 days.

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and all appeals by the defendants are dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is delivered with the judgment of the court of first instance.

B. Each “The date on which the Plaintiff’s ownership of 1 and 2 real estate listed in the attached Form 1 and 2 is lost” is obvious that it is a clerical error in the “the date on which the Plaintiff loses ownership of 2/7 shares among each real estate listed in the attached Form 1 and 2,” and it is decided to correct it. It is so decided as per