1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part are all revoked.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the pertinent item of "1. Facts of recognition" in the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reason for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the pertinent item.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that they are investors in the construction of a new building in the instant building in which I implemented, as one of the investors in the construction of a new building in the instant building in which I implemented, have the claims for return of investment funds to I by winning in the lawsuit filed against I.

However, considering the circumstances in which I established the Defendant, and the representative director of I and the director of the Defendant’s representative are the same, and among the lawsuits for return of investment proceeds between the Plaintiffs and I, I transferred the building and site of the instant wing Party to the Defendant on the grounds of donation or sale, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant is a juristic person substantially identical to I, and thus, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant has practically assumed the obligation to return investment proceeds to

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to return the investment amount and pay damages for delay to the plaintiffs.

B. 1) According to the above facts, under the agreement entered into between I and the defendant by preparing the instant agreement, I bears all the obligations, such as investment funds and construction cost, arising from the construction process of the instant building in the sealed building, and the defendant agreed to bear the management duties of the building in the sealed building in this case. As such, it is insufficient to recognize that the above agreement alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant discharged or concurrently assumed the obligations related to I's investment funds to the plaintiffs, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. 2) Furthermore, we examine whether the defendant was established for the purpose of evading I's obligations, and its form and content are substantially the same as I and did not have any legal personality different from I.

The fact that the representative director and the defendant's representative director are all N.