1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the parts regarding the defendant corporation, NN, and K non-real estate trust corporation are as follows:

1. The reasoning in this part of the underlying facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 (No. 7, No. 14-3) of the judgment of the court of first instance except that the reason for the explanation is as follows: “No. 26, 2010” in Section 10, No. 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “No. 30, Mar. 30, 2010”; “a supplementary facility” in the first behavior under the table of the part in the middle part in the 111 as “a supplementary facility”; and therefore, the reason for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The reasons why the plaintiffs' assertion in this part are stated are as follows. The 10-19 of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows.

B. The grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance (No. 14, No. 6, No. 17, and No. 4), except for deletion of the part of the conjunctive claim, are the same as those set forth in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[3] Defendant NN is the party to each sales contract of this case and the party to each sales contract of this case and the party to each sales contract of this case and the party to each sales contract of this case, and Defendant NF is the party to each sales contract of this case and is the party to each sales contract of this case. Defendant NF trust is the party to each sales contract of this case and is in custody of each sales contract of this case, and the party has the duty to pay each sales price of this case and the delayed damages due to the cancellation or cancellation of each sales contract of this case and the restoration of the original state. The above Defendants’ obligations are in

B. Defendant NN and KB trust are joint tort tort liability for each of the Plaintiffs as joint tortfeasors with respect to the tort of this fraud. If Defendant KB trust is wholly or partially denied the duty to return unjust enrichment for Defendant KB trust or Defendant NN on the grounds that the third party is acting in good faith or there is no existing interest, even if the sales contract of this case was revoked, the Plaintiffs are equivalent to the amount of the sales price paid to the said Defendants as compensation for damages caused by the fraud, and the amount equivalent to the sales price paid by the said Defendants.