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

2. The appeal cost is borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: the court's reasoning for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: the "No. 9 of the court of first instance" includes any number except where the number is indicated particularly in the case; the "this judgment" of No. 14 of the court of first instance is as "the court of first instance"; and the judgment of the court of first instance is as against the defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment of the court of first instance is added. Thus, the corresponding part is accepted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. As examined in the above cited part of the judgment added, it is difficult to view that the agreement on the lawsuit by Defendant B was effective as follows: (i) the claim based on the subrogation for the secured obligation of the right to collateral security; (ii) each trademark right of this case is owned by Defendant C and held in title trust to the Plaintiff; and (iii) it is difficult to deem that the agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and Defendant B on the joint business with which the Plaintiff invested each trademark right of this case in an association separate from the personal property, and Defendant B made an investment in labor and labor contribution; and (iv) it is insufficient to recognize or reverse factual relations in the part related to this part as to the above cited part solely based on the evidence Nos. 20, 21, 24, and evidence No. 9-1, which were pointed out by the Defendants in the trial, and thus, it is insufficient to establish or reverse the factual relation or judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants [3) it is based on the premise that the agreement on the joint business under the above paragraph is established.

(including) all others are not acceptable.

3. As such, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants is legitimate, and the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.