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.

The reasons why the court should explain about this part of the claim for unjust enrichment due to the provision of laver, labor, and meal are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance (Articles 10 to 12, 5 of the judgment of the first instance) except for the following parts, and therefore, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

No. 2 of the judgment of the first instance court, "No. 16" (hereinafter "real estate and machinery of this case") is "the real estate and machinery of this case" and "the above Kim processing factory" is "the factory of this case".

Section 17 of Section 4 of the judgment of the first instance was involved in the work, such as working at the Gimman factory.

“The factory of this case was involved in the business of the factory of this case.”

"Flags".

The grounds of the first instance judgment are as follows.

1.(b)

2) The part of paragraphs (b) through (d) (the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, Chapters 6 through 5), as follows, shall be applied. The plaintiffs supplied water, labor, and school meals to the defendant free of charge as alleged by the plaintiffs. We examine whether the defendant obtained benefits without any legal ground through the provision of water, labor, and school meals to the defendant. According to the terms of the investment agreement of this case, each letter, and additional agreement of this case, the plaintiffs decided that L (in addition to the price of supplied goods to be received by the plaintiffs from the defendant, the price of supplied goods to be received by the plaintiffs and the wages shall be returned to L by means of receiving dividends from the defendant, and even in relation to the above price of supplied goods, the plaintiffs decided that L should pay investments directly to L, and that L should pay investments collected by calculating profits and losses every month. Thus, even if each agreement is concluded, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs provided water, labor, etc. to the defendant without compensation, and the settlement of dividends or other consideration made by the defendant against the defendant.