All appeals by the defendant are dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the defendant, and thus, citing it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4

[This Court’s argument and the evidence submitted by the Defendant are all examined, it is reasonable to make the first instance judgment. The Defendant’s ground of appeal is that the Defendant and the co-defendants of the first instance court (hereinafter “three persons, including the Defendant”) under Article 2 of the instant provisional disposition decision.

) Although the claims against the plaintiffs are indivisible claims, as stated in the first instance judgment, the above claims are monetary claims, and as stated in the first instance judgment, three persons including the defendant can individually exercise their right, and it is reasonable to deem that the execution of the time limit for indirect compulsory performance is in the relationship of divided claims as much as the defendant et al. can individually exercise. In this regard, the defendant asserts that "in the case of paragraph (2) of the provisional disposition order of this case, where the plaintiffs fail to perform their obligations under paragraph (1), it shall be interpreted that the defendant et al. should pay KRW 300 million to three persons including the defendant et al. who requested the inspection of this case." However, Article 2 of the provisional disposition order of this case merely orders the defendant et al. to pay KRW 10 million per day of violation, and does not order the defendant et al. to pay KRW 10 million for each of three persons including the defendant et al., and thus, it cannot be accepted.