1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and Defendant C are dismissed.

2. The portion resulting from the principal lawsuit out of the costs of appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is that "I" in Part 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 20, 6, 20, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 8, 7, 7, 7, 8, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, and 3.

2. Paragraph 2(c) below is added, and the judgment of the Defendants on new arguments in the trial is made.

Except as described in paragraph (1), it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

A. On the 7th page No. 16th page 30). On the 7th page, Defendant B asked the following questions: (a) the meaning of “a certificate of seal imprint issuance” in this part of this part of this case (the “certificate No. 4” is not that Defendant B confirmed the details of the certificate of seal imprint issuance, but whether Defendant B applied for the protection of seal imprint with respect to Defendant B’s seal imprint; (b) and (c) based on the “certificate of seal imprint issuance” among the above questions of the judicial police assistant, Defendant B was aware of the phrase “a certificate of seal imprint” as “a certificate of seal imprint issuance” at the time of applying for the issuance of the certificate of seal imprint; and (d) on or around July 6, 2014, Defendant B prepared for the instant litigation.