1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant against the plaintiff A, B, and D shall be revoked, respectively, and the revoked part shall be applicable.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the deletion or addition as follows, is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 6 of the judgment of the first instance shall be deleted with the approval of the defendant.

In the first place of the second place of the second place, “The Defendant concurrently acquired the obligation to return the H’s sub-lease deposit through the agreement in this case (the Plaintiff F’s assertion)” (other than the Plaintiff F’s assertion).

Part 8: A, B, C, and E’s claims are added as follows at the last place below.

(f) “The Defendant is liable for damages arising from H’s tort as an employer’s employer, and thus, the Defendant is liable for damages arising from H’s tort against the Plaintiffs.”

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

A. Since Plaintiff A, B, D, and E entered into a sub-lease agreement with H to impose any responsibility on the Defendant during the conclusion of the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits, the said Plaintiffs’ lawsuit filed in violation of the non-assignment agreement was unlawful as there is no benefit in protecting the rights.

B. According to the evidence No. 3-1, No. 6, and No. 11 of the judgment, it is recognized that Article 9 (5) of each sub-lease contract prepared between the above plaintiffs and H states states that "All civil or criminal issues with respect to this sub-lease contract and indicated real estate shall belong to Gap (H) and Eul (sub-lessee), and treatment construction shall not bear any responsibility for the sub-lease contract."

However, the above provision is intended to clarify the existence of a direct lease relationship between the above plaintiffs and the defendant, as it concluded a sub-lease contract with H, who is not the defendant, as the other party, and it goes beyond this.