All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as follows, and the part concerning the Defendants is stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the Defendants added a judgment on the newly added assertion in the trial as to “the scope of damages” as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[The Defendant’s argument in the grounds of appeal is basically different from the argument in the first instance court. However, even if the Defendants were partly supplemented in the first instance court, we affirm the fact-finding and judgment in the first instance court as it is just in its entirety, such as “(i) whether to recognize the deception by co-defendant D of the first instance court, (ii) whether Defendant E was involved in the recruitment or participation thereof, (iii) whether the Defendants are the victims of the Plaintiff B, and (iv) whether the Defendants’ liability is limited.”

2. The part concerning the judgment of the court of first instance to dismiss or add the judgment

A. On the 5th page 15, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance which was accepted by the court of first instance, “the third forest” is raised as “the second forest.”

B. As to the scope of damages, the judgment attached by the Defendants to the newly added argument in the trial is followed by 20 pages 1, which added the following judgments.

As to this, even if the defendants' liability for damages is recognized, the result of the market price appraisal of the appraiser 1 and 3 of this case in the first instance trial is different from the objective market price, and rather, the value of the forest land purchased by the defendant E is equivalent to the objective market price, so the amount of damages to be paid by the defendants should be calculated not by the market price appraisal result but by adding the amount calculated by adding the amount calculated by the plaintiffs to the cost that the plaintiffs purchased each forest of this case in this case.

Therefore, each of the instant forests and fields located within the health zone and the development restriction zone.