1. The part between the plaintiffs and the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiffs' claim against the defendant.

1. "1. Basic Facts" among the grounds for the court's explanation concerning this part of the cited part of the judgment of the first instance;

2. The summary of the Parties’ arguments;

3. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the plaintiffs and the defendant-related part of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the last two parallels to 16 pages 10), and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant’s defense agreed not to claim the Defendant and I as well as the Defendant, I’s design and waterproof construction cost, H waterproof construction cost, and G waterproof construction cost.

B. No. 7-1 and No. 2 [The plaintiffs are identical to the above agreement and the seal imprint affixed on the plaintiffs' names, but they are not affixed to the above agreement and the certificate. However, in the case where it is recognized that the seal imprint affixed on the document is affixed by the seal affixed on the name of the title holder, the establishment of the seal imprint, that is, the act of affixing the seal is presumed to have been done on the basis of the will of the title holder, unless there are special circumstances, and the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been established, and the document is presumed to have been forged in accordance with Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. On the other hand, if the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed to have been completed, it is necessary to prove that the document is forged, actively against the will of the title holder (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da72029, Feb. 5, 2002), the entry of the evidence No. 17 and No. 22, and the witness F.I.D. (the name of the owner of the first instance trial).

The testimony alone is insufficient to recognize that the stamp image of the plaintiffs' names in the above agreement and written confirmation has been stolen against the plaintiffs' will and sealed. Rather, in light of the circumstances seen below, the above agreement and written confirmation are deemed to have been sealed by the plaintiffs' will. Therefore, the plaintiffs' above agreement and written confirmation are deemed to have been affixed.