1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The first instance.

The reasons for this Court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance are as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Determination” as to the assertion that the Defendant adds a new addition to this Court. Accordingly, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The "35,100,000 won" in the 5th sentence of the first instance court shall be "36,100,000 won" in the 15th sentence.

In Part 6 of the 8th decision of the first instance court, the phrase “Plaintiff Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin 11,642,173,” added “Plaintiff sexual health business 5,331,506,” after adding “Plaintiff sexual health business 5,331,506.”

The following shall be added between the 7th decision of the first instance and the 19th decision:

[4] Each collection order of this case states "the amount of money up to the above claim amount among the construction cost claims held by the debtor against the third debtor." Since the debt owed by the defendant against E is an obligation for settlement following the termination of partnership relations, not the obligation for construction cost, each collection order of this case is invalid.

[Attachment] Of the first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s fifth judgment, the following is added between the first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance judgment and the first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance judgment. 5) Inasmuch as the indication of the claim, which is the object of each of the instant collection order, is indicated to the extent that it is able to distinguish the interested parties from other claims, and it does not reach the degree of undermining the recognition of the identity, the relevant seizure and collection order should be deemed valid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da89036, Apr. 28, 201; 2016Da5601, Apr. 13, 2017).