1. The Plaintiff’s appeal and the claim against Defendant F and G added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows. Except as to the claim against Defendant F and G added in the trial, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants during the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. Part 7, 12-13 of the 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 13 portion “Defendant D and J as a joint lessor” is “A lessor and Defendant F as a lessee.”

Of the deposit, the lower part 1-2 of the lower 7th page “162,00,000 won was remitted to the Defendant G account,” which read as “48,00,000 won out of the deposit (D returned the said money to Defendant F’s account again), 114,00,000,000 won was remitted to each of the Defendant G account.”

9. The number of buyers in the 14th place of the commercial building shall be "the vice president of D and the number of buyers in the commercial building".

At the bottom of 10 pages, the term “Defendant F and G account from Plaintiff C” means “C or from Plaintiff to Defendant F and G account.”

11-3 of the 11th 1st 1st 3th son part of the “Non-Defendant F” is as follows.

Even if part of the deposit to be paid to D upon the request of Defendant F, who was the vice president of D, was remitted to Defendant G, this is limited to the payment method of the deposit after the conclusion of the lease agreement, and that D does not deny the validity of the payment of the deposit, and that there is no other evidence to deem that Defendant F and G were specifically involved in the conclusion of the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff asserts that even if the Defendants were not aware of their intent of deception, they are held liable for tort due to negligence as long as they were involved in the pre-sale in violation of social order.

However, the plaintiff's damage is between the plaintiff and D which was concluded at the time defendant E serves as representative director.