1. The plaintiff's appeal and each primary claim selected by this court are dismissed in entirety.

2...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, determination of issues, etc.) is sufficiently reasonable as a result of determining issues in accordance with the appellate court’s methods and principles, laws, precedents, legal principles and rules of evidence based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court citing the court of first instance.

The reasoning for this Court concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning for this Court is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance except for further determination as to the matters alleged as the grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs, as set forth in paragraph (3) below. Thus, this Court cites the summary of the judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. (a) In the second part of the judgment of the first instance, “2,239 square meters of woodland E located in Pakistan-si” is 2,239 square meters of woodland 2,239 square meters of land in Pakistan-si” in the second part of the judgment of the first instance.

(b) Part 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance is deleted. (C) Each of the subparagraphs 3, 13 and 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “wholly obtaining the development activities of the instant land,” shall be deemed “ wholly obtaining the development activities of the instant land,” respectively.

3. Additional determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion that the Defendant is entirely obligated to obtain permission for development activities under the instant investment contract (related to the principal claim), the main point of the argument is that the Defendant is wholly obligated to obtain permission for development activities of the instant land according to the instant investment contract. The judgment of the court of first instance that otherwise determined is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. In full view of the following various circumstances and grounds, the lower court’s determination is justifiable in that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant is entirely obligated to obtain permission for development activities of the instant land according to the instant investment contract, and there is insufficient evidence in the appellate court that is a fact-finding trial, to change the judgment of

Therefore, it is true.