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.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment as to the plaintiffs’ assertion by the following Paragraph 2, and therefore, it is identical to the entry of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

(In light of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in a trial, it is not different from the fact-finding of the first instance court, even if it is considered that the plaintiff submitted additional evidence in the trial).

A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that the judgment of the first instance court contains errors in the misunderstanding of evidence, mistake of facts, and omission of judgment.

B. 1) First of all, the fact-finding of the party is identical to that of the judgment of the first instance court, so there is no ground for misunderstanding of facts, and furthermore, it is not possible to find any error in the adoption of evidence, the incomplete hearing, and the misunderstanding of legal principles so as to affect the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Next, we examine whether

On the grounds of a judgment, a judgment on a party’s assertion and other means of offence and defense shall be indicated to the extent that the main text can be recognizable as fair, and no judgment on all parties’ allegations or means of offence and defense shall be required

(Article 208 of the Civil Procedure Act). Therefore, even if a court’s ruling does not state a direct judgment on the matters alleged by the parties, if it is possible to find out that the assertion was cited or rejected in light of the overall purport of the reasoning of the judgment, it cannot be deemed an omission of judgment. Even if a court’s ruling was not actually made, if there was no error of omission of judgment, unless

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Da87174, Apr. 26, 2012; 2002Da56116, Dec. 26, 2002). Under the premise that land owned by a partner cannot be a free donation to a cooperative, unless there is an express disposal document or declaration of intent, the Plaintiffs are subject to the judgment of the first instance court.