1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

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

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following, and therefore, this case is quoted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

6 pages 11 of the first instance court's decision "each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including paper numbers)" shall be read as "each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including paper numbers) and Eul evidence 1 and 14."

On the six pages of the judgment of the first instance court, the defendant shall read "the defendant, K and L" as "the defendant, K and L," and the defendant shall read "the defendant, K and L" as "the defendant, K and L".

On the 7th judgment of the first instance court, the following 5th "Evidence 7-1 and 2 of the A" is "Evidence 7, Eul 3, 7, and 8 of the A (including each number)".

On the nine pages of the judgment of the first instance court, the phrase “each entry of the evidence of subparagraphs A through 14 (including the paper number)” shall be read as “each entry of subparagraphs A through A (including the paper number) and U witness of the first instance court”.

7 to 10 - 3.B. of the first instance judgment.

The parts of paragraphs are as follows.

B. The statement of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, 8, and 15 (including paper numbers) on the assertion of revocation by fraud is insufficient to acknowledge the fact of deception as alleged by the defendant, K, and L, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion cannot be accepted.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the right to revoke this part of the plaintiffs has expired even with the limitation period.

According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 6, it can be recognized that the defendant exercised his right of revocation on March 26, 2010, which was prior to the expiration of the exclusion period from August 11, 2008, by sending to the defendant a certificate of content that "it is required to immediately return the mining right illegally acquired by deceiving the principal only one day from the date the certification of its content is received."