1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and incidental appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of Paragraph 1, except for the dismissal as follows.

Defendant B, “Defendant B,” and “Defendant C,” and “Defendant B,” in the same four parallels in the first three parallels in the first three parallels in the court of first instance, shall be deemed “C” and “Defendant B,” respectively.

Defendant B shall turn “Defendant B” into “Defendant” during the three-dimensional 6th judgment of the first instance court.

In the 10th 10th 3th 10th 10th 10th am "the plaintiff added "the defendant" to "the defendant and C", "the defendant" in the same 11th am "the defendant and C", "the violation of the Development Restriction Zone Act" in the same 11th 11th am "the violation of the Development Restriction Zone Act" in the same 13th am "the defendant and C", "the defendant" in the same 13th am "the defendant and C", "the disposition that is not suspected of lack of evidence" to "the non-prosecution disposition of suspicion of lack of evidence".

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The plaintiff's argument that this part of the plaintiff's argument is stated in paragraph (a) of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the case where "the defendant and C" are all described in paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the defendant" in the same part 18 of the same part shall be "the defendant and C", "the defendant" in the fourth two of the same part shall be "the defendant jointly and severally with C", and "6.7 million won" in the same part 3 of the same part shall be "the sum of "35 million won and consolation money and 6.6 million won" in the same part shall be the same as that of paragraph (a) of the judgment of the court of first instance, and it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence and the witness H’s testimony and the purport of the entire pleadings, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendant was liable for damages due to nonperformance or tort in connection with banking operations conducted on the instant land.