1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

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

3. The plaintiff Cho Nam-nam Construction.

1. The reasoning for the court's decision on this part of the basic facts is that "Plaintiffs" is used as "each obligation listed in the attached Table 1, and "each obligation listed in the attached Table 1," and the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (the second 19 to 8 pages 17)" and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 8th [based basis for recognition] column of the first instance judgment added “this court’s significant fact” to “the 8th instance judgment,” and added the following information to “the 8th instance judgment.”

“A. On March 8, 2018, when the instant appellate trial was pending, the rehabilitation debtor, the debtor, the debtor in charge of the lawsuit of the Plaintiff, the debtor in charge of the Plaintiff, was appointed as the manager. On June 7, 2018, the manager D taken over the instant lawsuit by the debtor in charge of the rehabilitation debtor, the debtor in charge of the Plaintiff, the debtor in charge of the lawsuit of the Plaintiff, the debtor in charge of the Plaintiff, the debtor in charge of the construction, the debtor in C&D, the debtor in charge of the construction, the debtor in C&D, taken over the instant lawsuit by the debtor in question.”

2. The parties' assertion

A. The reasoning for the judgment of the Defendant’s argument on this part is that “Plaintiffs” is identical to the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the Plaintiff 1, 3, 4, and 5 and the rehabilitation debtor construction corporation, “Tho-nam Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd.,” and thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, and 5 asserted by the plaintiffs, and the rehabilitation obligor, Nam Construction Co., Ltd. do not bear each of the obligations under the above paragraph (a) against the defendant, and thus, they seek confirmation of the non-existence thereof.

3. The reasons for the judgment of this Court concerning this part are as follows: “Plaintiffs” are as follows: “Plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, and 5 and as well as as as “Seoul Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., the debtor of rehabilitation”: 24 pages 12 and 18.