1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as follows, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the judgment of paragraph 2. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Defendant C asserted that, at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the lessor Nonparty C had known the current status of lessee and senior rental deposit of the instant building at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The Defendant asserted that, at the time of the conclusion of each of the instant lease agreement, the lessor E explained the Plaintiffs in detail the number of lessees of the instant building at the time of the conclusion of each of the instant lease agreement, the current status of lease, and the amount of senior rental deposit. However, the Defendants asserted that, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to believe that Defendant C and E have engaged in financial transactions for a large amount of time before and after the date of conclusion of each of the instant lease agreements, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

2. Upon entering into each of the instant lease agreements, the Defendant Association added the following: (a) the lessor, in detail, appears to have entered into each of the instant lease agreements with E regardless of whether the lessor fulfilled its duty to verify and explain the object of brokerage; and (b) lower-ranking lessee than the Plaintiffs of the instant building as a small lessee, in total of KRW 120,00,000,000.